


*,<* 































.... -^ 



C°* A^£N *°o 



^„ t * 



i: ** 



•' o* 








**o« 






%<** .-aft: w 











// 



i 



r» <* L **< r 



Si 



\ *■ r 






AN 



INQUIRY 



INTO THE 



NATURE AND CHARACTER 



ANCIENT AND MODERN SLAVERY 



' 



TO WHICH IS ADDED A 



B R I EF REVIEW 



OF A BOOK ENTITLED, TESTIMONY OF GOD AGAINST 
SLAVERY, 



BY REV. LA ROY SUNDERLAND. 



"For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me : and 
1 say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he 
cometh ; and (to doulo mou) to my servant, (slave) Do this, and he 
doeth it. 

When Jesus heard it, he marvelled and said,— 1 have not found »o 
great faith, no, not in Israel."— Matt, viii : 9, 10. 



BY J. SMALL, M. D. 

1836. 



Entered according to Act of Congress in the year 1336 5 
By J. Small, JM. D- # 

In the Clerk's Office cAe District Court of the D,s«„c< of Matoe. 



jifn 



CONTENTS 



Introduction, - - - 

CHAPTER 1. 

Scripture evidence of ancient Slavery and of what Slavery is, 9 

Section 1.— Preliminary remarks on the terms, stranger, ser- 
vant, and bondman, ..'--- 

Sec. 2.— Farther remarks on strangers, - - - 10 

Sec. 3. — Did" the favors conferred on the circumcised stranger el- 
evate his social condition above the reach of perpetual slavery ? 12 

Sec 4. — Did Slavery exist anciently among the children of Is- 
rael, or did it not ? ----- 14 

Sec 5. — From among what class of people were slaves taken ? 29 

Sec 6. — Was there a difference between the slavery of the He- 
brews, and that of strangers ? - - - 34 

Sec 7. — Did the Old Testament scriptures include under the 
term "Oppression" &c Slavery, or the loss of liberty ? 30 

Sec 8. — When were slaves said to be oppressed, or in what did 
their oppression consist ? 40 

Sec 9.— Yet after all, was not ancient Slavery used merely as a 
punishment for crime; and ought to be viewed in this light, 
and in no other ? 47 

Sec 10. — Is the possession of the liberties of one man by anoth- 
er, necessarily, sin ? - - - - - 51 

Sec 11. — Js Slavery consistent with the Gospel dispensation; 
i. e. can it exist without sin under it? -' - 52 

CHAPTER II. 

Brief Review of Rev. L. R Sunderland's Book, entitled, Testi- 
mony of God against Slavery, - - - 68 
Sec 1.— Strictures on Mr. S's view of Slavery, - G8 
Sec 2. — A few remarks on the course adopted by Mr. S. in the 

above work,* .... - 91 

Sec 3. — Review of his testimony from "Moses," 
Sec 4.— Continued, .... 95 

Sec 5. — Review of his testimony from Joshua, Job, and Ezra, 97 
Sec 6.— Do. from David, .... 99 

Sec 7. — Do. from Solomon, ... - 101 

Sec 8. — Do. from Isaiah, ... - 102 

Sec 9.— Do, from Jeremiah, - - - 103 

Sec 10. — Do. from Ezekiel, Daniel, Ilosea, Joel, Amos, Jonah, 

Micah, Nahum. Habakknk, Zechariah, and Malachi, 105 

Sec. 11.— Do. from Jesus Christ, - - - IOC 

Sec 12.— Do. from St. Paul, - - - - 107 

Sec 13.— Do. from St. James, St. Peter, St. John, - HO 

Sec 14. — Some farther remarks on various sentiments divulged 
by our Author, in his No let, - - - H3 



PREFACE 



We are aware that some may think the present production 
uncalled for, inasmuch as enough has been written to satisfy the 
most incredulous. This position, however, is not always tena- 
ble. Many people are led more by feeling than by reason or 
argument. To have such act understandingly they must re- 
ceive "line upon line, and precept upon precept." And when 
we view the measures and plans that are adopted by a certain 
class of men to bring about a certain professed benevolent object 
at the present day, we feel that every man ought to act under- 
standingly and in the fear of God. The abolition of that grow- 
ing evil, — domestic negro slavery, — is ardently desired by all 
true lovers of human kind. That it will be abolished, we have 
no doubt. But of the precise time, no manknoweth; yet we 
would hope, it may be near. But that we "remove every 
stumbling block," it is proper that we build upon the "right 
foundation." That our premises be correct ; and that our infer- 
ences be just. In view of these principles, it is, that we have of- 
fered these pages to the public. We make no pretensions to 
perfection. We shall not be surprised, therefore, if many errors 
are detected by the scrutinizing and the critic. We offer it to 
the public as it is, — hoping that it may be a feeble means of 
helping such a? are enquiring concerning their duty on the mo- 
mentous slave subject, to look well to the "foundation" before 
they "build thereon." Let them not be carried away with the 
idea, that a "system" is necessarily "answerable" for all "its a- 
buses," — "that all slavery is sin," — "that its "relation" must 
be abolished, because it cannot be abused," and that "op- 
pression," "scourging," "maiming," "murder," "theft," "separa- 
tion of man and wife," "adulter)^," and the wjjole black cata- 
logue of sins that were ever committed by any people however 
wicked are the real genuine characteristics "of the slave sys- 
tem!" We say, let them beware of such ideas as these, for 
they are false ! Slavery never can be abolished by such a false 
representation of things. View things as they are, and then act 
accordingly. Let wisdom, prudence and the Word of God di- 
rect ; and not the blind, headlong, rash precipitancy of squeam- 
ish feeling. And then will slavery speedily come to an end, 
which is the earnest and sincere desire and prayer of the 

AUTHOR. 

Lovell, Feb. 1836. 



INTRODUCTION, 



The present is a day of benevolence and philanthro- 
py. Never was there a time when there prevailed so 
strong and so ardent desire to better the condition of 
man as the present. And yet equally true is it, that so 
ardent is the desire, that unless the means are well look- 
ed to, it is to be feared, that, in some instances, at least, 
it may frustrate its own desires. For it is too much the 
case that the mind of man is predisposed to vibrate from 
the one extreme to the other ; one point of which is as 
far from truth, as the other. 

In all agitated questions therefore, these feelings and 
passions which help on these extreme vibrations, should 
have a steady helm, — judgement and wisdom, — to reg- 
ulate them ; — without which these feelings will uniform- 
ly lead us astray. The impropriety, consequently. 
of appealing to the passions for assistance, where 
judgement and wisdom ought to direct, is not, of it- 
self, a principle of humanity. If we are to be directed 
by benevolent feelings and passions merely, to all such 
as are actually suffering ; we might throw open our pris- 
on doors, and cease enacting laws. For all these laws 
and prisons are based on the ground that crime is pun- 
ishable ; which punishment is not a sensation of pleas- 
ure but of pain. Now if our philanthropic feeling* 
alone are to be consulted, we should certainly say, it 
gives us grief to see our fellow-beings suffer. Yet true 
philanthropy which is composed of prudence, judge- 
ment and wisdom, as well as of benevolent feelings and 
passion, for any individual, approves of the condemna- 
tion. For a principle of that philanthropy is, "It is bet- 
ter that thefeiv suffer than the many." 

Among the other objects of philanthropy, which are 
1 



'Z 

engaging the attention of the humane, that of Negro Sla- 
very is not the least. The slavery of one part of the human 
family by an other part, is a fact which calls loudly for the 
interposition of measures for its utter abolition. Yet as 
"the love of Money is the root of all evil," so is it necessa- 
ry to be doubly watchful and circumspect that we do not 
"pull down" faster "than we build up." That we do not 
rivet the chains of bondage more strong than they were 
before. And as a director in assisting us in our first 
steps which must be made so cautiously, it is proper that 
we have a definite idea of what the evil is, in, and of'it- 
self; divested of all extraneous evils which may attend 
it as circumstances or effects. This definite idea then 
will be couched in a definition. This definition must 
be composed of a sufficient number of characteristics to 
distinguish it from every thing else. A characteristic is 
a property attached to any thing which is inseverable 
from it. Which is essential to the existence of that 
thing, or which cannot exist without it. Tims sweet- 
ness is a characteristic of sugar, and heat of fire ; for 
neither of these substances can exist without these their 
respective characteristics. We shall define negro sla- 
very, therefore, thus : The possession or retention of 
one man's liberties by another, independently as a pun- 
ishment for personal crime. 

This definition embraces the bonds of the slave to his 
Master. But the Master is under bonds also. Al- 
though his bonds are not in the hands of any human be- 
ing, yet they are not the less binding. Should he break 
them, the awful consequences will fall on his own head, 
in just retribution for his own unrighteous conduct. — - 
These bonds are embraced in the "Moral Law of God." 
"Love thy neighbor as thyself." That is do by him 
in his circumstances, as thou wouldst wish to be done 
by, were the same circumstances your own portion. — 
Not that he is to be immediately "set free," — although 
if it could be consistently done, it would be a thing great- 
ly to be desired ; — because a poor man might on the 
same principle, wish his rich neighbor to divide his prop- 
erty with him ; — or the rich man were he poor might 



wish the same thing, yet does any one suppose that such 
rich neighbor breaks this moral precept, should he not 
thus distribute his property ? Most certainly not. To 
the Master, therefore, slavery is apolitical regulation 
which is to be controlcd by moral obligation. 

Slavery, as a system, therefore consists of the recip- 
rocal "bonds," both of the Master and Slave. Those 
of the slave are necessarily embraced in the conse- 
quence of the loss of his liberty ; and those of the Mas- 
ter in his accountability to his God. We would there- 
fore say, that to the master, slavery is a political regula- 
tion, controled by moral obligation. 

This, we suppose to present a fair view of the princi- 
ples of the slavery system. The bonds of the slave, as 
w T ell as those of the master, will require a few remarks. 

Some may suppose that slavery must essentially con- 
sist in the "holding of human beings as property." But 
if this is slavery, then every individual, who from inabil- 
ity, old age, sickness or any other cause which renders 
him unsaleable, is not a "slave ;" notwithstanding he 
may be compelled to labor beyond his strength, — go hall 
starved, — naked, — and receive a flagellation seven times 
a week ! — Neither is the simple "right" of holding 
"property" in men any more tenable. For if all the 
control a master has over his negro, is the simple 
"right" of selling him as property, the negro can retain 
ever)' right of a free citizen. They cannot control his 
liberties in the least. He may be considered in the 
light, somewhat of the "eastern timber lands," as an ar- 
ticle upon which to speculate, but not, in particular, to 
occupy. For the negro himself may be at his liberty 
to do as he pleases. But am I told he could not be 
sold, unless he could be used ? That is none of our 
concern. If you have the "'right,"- sell him (/you can. 

Others have supposed that it consists in the "JorciMi 
detention" of the slave's liberties. Consequently, it 
force has not been used, the individual so held is not a 
slave. 

What is to be done, therefore, with the following 
case ? — A nesro, a slave, whom we shall call A. goes i< 



B. and agrees that, for a certain sum, he will serve him 
all the days of his life. B. pays over the sum, — not to 
the negro, — but to his former master ; and takes the ne- 
gro to himself. This negro then, notwithstanding he 
was "bought," — "property recognized in him," — and 
whose liberties are entirely out of his own hands and al- 
ways will be ; yet because he was "willing," — was not 
compelled, — is no slave !* 

But again : every person who is forcibly detained, is 
a slave. Consequently all persons taken on legal pro- 
cess ! 

We have said "the master was under bonds to the 
slave." This we shall now endeavor to explain. By 
the expression however, we do not wish to be un- 
derstood as saying the master's obligations to his slave 
are particular ones ; or that they were made with a 
particular reference to slaves ; but that they originate 
from general laws, which are binding on every individu- 
al on the globe. These obligations are embraced in the 
moral law of God, "love thy neighbor as thyself," — 
live irreproachably, — and obey all his commands, "that 
thy soul may live." Now we say, these injunctions are 
binding on all mankind, — on the men of the North, as 
well as on the men of the South. Neither are they of 
partial application, but are to govern man in all his acts* 
as well those of a social and of a religious nature, as those 
governing slaves. Notwithstanding the slave is com- 
pletely in his hands to do with him as seemeth him good: 
yet moral obligation to his God will restrain the master 
from abusing him. He will give him that which is "just 
and equal," and will deal with him as with children. 

These then are the bonds under which we believe ev- 
ery master is placed who has slaves. But does this 
destroy the relation which exists between master and 
slave ? Surely not. If the master have the entire lib- 

*"The Editor of the Southern Baptist, the Rev. Mr. Brisbane," 
says the Christian Watchman, "assures us that 'he has more than 
once, offered his slaves their freedom, and yet they still remain in 
bondage, though they have full and free permission to go whenever 
they please to Liberia, or any other place where the laws of the land 
will allow them to enjoy their freedom.' " 



erty of the slave, so that it is his, in every sense of the 
word ; it is nothing more than what may be said of 
himself. 

Every master is in his own possession, and has a right 
to do with himself as he chooses, in virtue of the relation 
which he stands in to himself. He has no liberties but 
what belong to himself. Js he, therefore, merely in vir- 
tue of that relation, a right to get drunk, — to lie. 
— to cheat, — to defraud, — or to murder ? Or has 
the parent, in virtue of the relation which he holds to 
his child, a right to abuse him ? We know it is object- 
ed that the relation between parent and child is differ- 
ent from that of master and slave. — But in what re- 
spects we could never divine. The child has no liberty 
of his own, and never had. He was born subject to his 
parent, — he receives no wages for his labor, — has no 
right to its fruits — i. e. as a rev T ard, — he may be whip- 
ped, — scourged, maimed, he. — may also be let, — sold 
for money, and disposed of as property ! until he is 21 
years of age ! And what more can you do with a slave ? 
Do we hear it said, the law interferes with this abuse of 
the child? That has nothing to do with the subject. 
We are now speaking of the "relation," and ol that a- 
lone. We ask, is there, by such treatment of the child, 
a violation of the relation there existing, any more than 
there is in the treatment of the master to his slave ? — 
By what natural, inherent right, aside from the obliga- 
tions of the moral law of God, on the parent, has the 
child a right to interfere with such parental treatment : 
Has he, or can he have, any more than the slave ? The 
parent therefore abuses no relation, for the child is his 
own. He can dispose of him without his consent, — 
u hind him out" to whomsoever he chooses by a trade 
for a stipulated sum ! — Apply the money to his own use- 
in the same way that he would if he had sold any piec<* 
of property whatever ! — while the child must work for 
nought ! 

So it is with any property that a man has the entire 
possession of. He may put it to any use he please* 
and not abuse his "right" so to do in consequence of 
1* 



the relation he holds to it. He may gamble it away, 
— spend it in a brothel. — at a grog-shop — in carousing, 
— and in dissipation. But does he do right ? Does the 
moral law of God uphold all these courses merely be- 
cause there is no relation abused ? If, therefore, every 
relation is to be abolished which may be made a sinful 
use of, what, kind leader, shall we have left? Even 
man himself, must submit to the separation of his body 
and soul, — never more to have a relation of any kind, 
which it is possible to have eventuate in sin, establish- 
ed between them ! Consequently, should they come 
together again, they will be mere machines, — incapable 
of either a good or a bad act ! 

It is presumed that by this time the reader sees the 
impropriety of the abolitionist principle which they ap- 
ply to slavery, — that it ought to be abolished, because 
the master can commit sin with his slaves without an 
abuse of the slave relation ! 

But though man may not abuse his relation to his 
slave, in any abuse which he may offer such an one in 
itself cousidered ; yet he may break the moral laws of 
God by making- such a use of this relation. For since 
man's relation with surrounding things, whether visible 
or invisible, is as extensive as his acts ; it follows, that, 
were his relations to be his criterion for good or bad ac- 
tions, there would have been no need of a moral Law. 
But inasmuch as the former is different in this respect, 
we have been furnished with the latter, to which we are 
accountable, and to which the acts arising from our re- 
lation to all other things, must yield. So far as the 
master is concerned, therefore, the slave system, is, 
strictly speaking, the doing unto slaves in their situ- 
ation, as the master would wish to be dealt by, were the 
same circumstances his own. This is what we mean 
by the slave system, wherever that term is used, as it 
respects the master. 

Before any individual is justified in saying that k ' ; sla- 
very is sin" he must have indubitable evidence that 
every instance oi it is sin, in any and every form. For 
if a person can imagine a case of slavery where no sin 



can properly and rationally be supposed to be connected 
with that slavery, then it follows that slavery can exist 
without sin ; consequently sin and slavery are two things. 
That slavery is not sin, in and of itself, it seems to us 
must appear evident to every one who looks candidly, 
with a sincere desire to arrive at the truth ; and, as it is 
hoped, the following pages will make obvious to him. 
Yet no less true is it, that it is an "eri/," not only by its 
being associated intimately with traits which must be 
considered as such, and as nothing else ; but as bein^ 
an evil of itself. These evils call loudly for redress, 
but which cannot be redressed but by the abolition of 
the system itself. But the system can never be thus 
abolished so long as we do not have just views of it. 
By some we would fain be made to believe that extreme 
oppression — hard and vigorous service, — cruel bond- 
age, — severe flagellations, — broken down mental intel- 
lects, — brutal punishments, — adultery, theft, and mur- 
der are the "essentials 91 of slavery ! — That they are 
chareicteristics of the system. But by holding up these 
as characteristics rather than as circumstances, or evils. 
attending it ; they overthrow their own intentions. For 
it they are charastenstics, then they must all be present 
in every case of slavery. Consequently wherever they 
are absent there is no slavery. But, let me ask, where 
is there a case where all these are present, or even one 
half of them? Indeed, how many cases are thereof 
acknowledged slavery, where not one of them is present. 
The remarks made above, therefore, includes all the 
principles of slavery. We have been the more particu- 
lar in these remarks, because some, we apprehend, have 
received an erroneous idea in relation to that system. 
Supposing that a system is answerable for all the bad 
uses which may be made of it. This, it will be seen, is 
a fallacious method of reasoning. The very principles 
which are assumed here, would, if carried out, destroy 
every system in the world, whether good or bad. Re- 
ligion would be considered as false, and "Christianity, a 
fable !" 



The object of the following pages may be presented 
thus : 

1st. To give what we consider a fair view of the sla- 
very "system." 

2d. To show in some measure, incidentally, the dif- 
ference between the "characteristics" and attendant 
"evils" of this system. 

3d. An inquiry into the nature of slavery among the 
ancients. 

4th. Whether such slavery is sin. 

5th. Whether slavery is compatible as existing with- 
out sin under the Gospel Dispensation, &tc. These items 
are not taken up the in order in which they are here enu- 
merated ; but the principles they involve are essentially 
included in the remarks which are subjoned in the fol- 
lowing pages. 

No remarks therefore which follow are to be con- 
strued so as to have them support the idea of slavery ! 
Nothing can be farther from the intention of the author. 
For, while he contends that slavery did anciently exist, 
and that slavery recognized the same rights or charac- 
teristics as slavery now, — that the abuse of that system 
was, or might be, attended with the same sinful effects., 
—that the essential principles of it were they the same 
as the principles of it now, — that the principles were 
then, and must be, so long as it exists, the same, — that 
slavery, in itself, is not sin, he. Yet all this is merely 
in attestation that slavery is not what some endeavor to 
make it, so exceeding sinful that no slaveholder can be 
saved who continues the practice ; but that while it is 
an evil greatly to be deplored, and which calls for effi- 
cient means for its abolition with a voice not to be misun- 
derstood, it requires deep thought and a close examina- 
tion for its consistent extermination. And that while 
it thus rests, during this time of consideration and reflec- 
tion, those who hold slaves are not committing that sin 
which must exclude them from the special blessing of 
Heaven. 



CHAPTER I, 

Scripture Evidence of Ancient Slavery, and 
of what Slavery is. 

SECTION 1. 

Ppeliminary Remarks on the terms stranger, ser- 
vant AND BONDMEN. 

We frequently meet with the terms "stranger," "ser- 
vant," and "bondmen" in reading the Pentateuch. 
Consequently the following remarks have been elicited. 
Strangers, 

These were all such as did not belong to the genuine 
stock of Israel,-*; foreigners.— faring renounced idola 
try, they lived and sojourned with the Israelites and be 
came partially incorporated with them. Of these stran- 
gers there were two classes. And distinguished by the 
epithet "dwellers" and "sojourners" See Lev. 19 : 33, 
34. The first of these are sometimes called "prose- 
lytes of the Covenant," while the latter "proselytes of 
the gate." Proselytes of the Covenant were circumcised 
and enjoyed all the religious privileges, and subjected to 
all the penalties of the Israelites. "When a stranger 
shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to 
the Lord ; let all his males be circumcised," and in do- 
incr this the stranger becomes "as one thai u born m 
the land." Ex.V2 : 48. Numb. 9 : 14. 

The other class were those who "renounced idolatry 
—acknowledged the true Cod— obsei vt d the seven pre- 
cepts of Noah ; but were not circumcised, nor were they 
obliged to observe any of the Mosaic Institutions. — 
Clarke.— They were therefore debarred by Moses from 



10 

eating the passover. For the law is, "no uncircumcis- 
ed person shall eat thereof." Ex. 12: 48. 

This distinction it is of consequence to keep in mind ; 
otherwise we may find some difficulty in reconciling 
certain texts. Lev. 25 : 35 — 37 and Deut. 23 : 26 is 
an example. 

Servants, 

These were mostly slaves. Hagar is called a u maid.' 
Gen. 16: 1,2; but in the 21st chap, she is called a 
"bond-woman." — "But every man's servant that is 
bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him. 
then shall he eat thereof." Ex. 12 : 44. Mr. Wat- 
son says, "formerly among the Hebrews and the neigh- 
boring nations, the greater part of servants were slaves ; 
that is to say, they belonged absolutely to their mas- 
ters, who had a right to dispose of their persons — their 
bodies — goods — and even of their lives in some cases." 
Bib. and Theo. Diet. Art. Servant. 
Hired Servants. 

These were probably taken from among the "sojourn- 
ers" or "'proselytes of the gate." From among whom 
the Israelites could "buy slaves" or "hire servants." — 
See Lev, 25 : 45, and Ex. 12 : 45. 
Bondmen. 

From the very epithet by which these individuals 
were distinguished, we cannot suppose them to be ei- 
ther Icings, priests, or law givers. More consistent is it 
to suppose that they were of the same class, as to con- 
dition, with the "Gibeanites" who were made "bond- 
men" and "hewers of wood and drawers of water" for- 
ever. See Josh 9: 23 and 27. — This term was appli- 
ed to such only as were slaves, or liable to be, for an 
indefinite period of time, or for life : — generally over six 
years. 

SECTION 2. 

Farther remarks on Strangers. 
We wish to have the reader obtain a clear idea in re- 
lation to this class of people. For in these modern days 



11 

"We would fain be made to believe that all strangers were 
alike — tbat tbe same law governed them, as governed 
the Israelites themselves, — and if one class was exempt 
from slavery, all were, — pagan, — heathen, — Canaanites 
and all. We wish therefore just to make a few ad- 
ditional remarks before we quit the subject of strangers. 

And we would observe, that the scripture is very par- 
ticular .in the application of certain epithets to each of 
the particular classes of strangers which we have no- 
ticed. While the one class is not to be "vexed" the oth- 
er is to be "loved as thyself?' Lev. 19 : 33, 34, — the 
one can eat of the passover, the other can not — the one 
when in want or distress can be assisted with money or 
food without usury, — the other must beg usury. — Lev. 
25 : 35, 6 and Deut. 23 : % — the one is acknowledged 
as brethren ; the other not known by any such appella- 
tion. — ib. 

By keeping up this distinction between strangers, it 
is very easy to see the appropriate application of vari- 
ous laws and usages among the Israelites. For no one 
would suppose that a law which was made for a cir- 
cumcised person, could be consistently applied to an 
uncircumcised one. And as the Israelites were all un- 
der this rite, all the laws they made, by which to regu- 
late themselves and others who dwelt with them, were 
evidently founded in relation to this. They recognized 
circumcision as the door through which every one must 
enter, in order to obtain the protection of their law, or 
their religious privileges. How, then, could an uncir- 
cumcised stranger expect to receive the benefits of the 
Hebrew's law? What right had he to expect it? — 
Surely none. Hence, all those passages which speak of 
strangers, as being on a level with the Israelites, must 
be understood as refering to the "proselytes of the Cov- 
enant," — or strangers of the first class — those who had 
been circumcised. 

If we look at the privileges which these circum- 
cised strangers enjoyed, no one, who is at all con- 
versant with the usages of the Israelites, will sup- 
pose for a moment, that the uncircumcised are in- 



12 

tended, — or even could be. It will be perceived that 
these privileges were equal to those ot the genuine 
stock of Jacob. — They had the law read to them the 
same as the Israelites. "There was not a word of all 
that Moses commanded, which Joshua read not before 
all the congregation of Israel, with the women and little 
ones, and the strangers that were conversant among 
them." Josh. 8 : 35. — He could eat the passover — 
Ex. 12: 48, — could offer up sacrifices — Numb. 15: 
14, 15— subject in this respect, to the same law as the 
Hebrew, see v. 16 — same immunity from crimes through 
ignorance — v. 26, — in this, governed by the same law 
as was the Hebrews — v. 29, — if unclean was purified 
in the same way — Numb. 19 : 9, 10 — same provision 
for his escape from the slayer, or avenger of blood — « 
Numb. 35: 15 — was to receive the same righteous 
judgment with the Israelite — Deut. 1 : 16 — was to re- 
joice in all the good things which the Lord gave him and 
the Israelites — Deut. 26: 11, — was commanded to ob- 
serve and do all the words of the law, — Deut. 31 : 12 
■ — It is almost needless to observe here, that the uncir- 
cumcised could not do this. — Is (to be) to the Jews as 
one born among them, and to be loved as they love 
themselves.— Lev. 19: 34.— Deut. 10 : 19. 

SECTION 3. 

Does the favors conferred on the circumcised 
stranger, elevate his social condition above 
the reach of "perpetual slavery?" 

Many people ol sanguine feelings are ready to decide 
almost any question, however important, from its first, 
obvious presentation, without taking the pains or the 
trouble to look into collateral circumstances, or its real 
nature. Hence. because it is said, "the stranger shall 
be as one born among you," and because "thou shalt 
love him as thyself," some seem to take it for granted 
that all strangers, — and apparently without any regard 
to their condition, whether they be idolaters or not, — 
have turned Israelites in good earnest ! It becomes, there- 
fore, important that we decide after mature reflection. 



13 

No law or precept at present occurs to me, by whi«h 
my mind would be influenced to believe, beyond the 
possibility of a doubt, that the social condition of even 
circumcised strangers was equal to that of the Israelites. 
Nor is there any rite which could produce this effect. 
Circumcision which was the door to their religious priv- 
ileges was no "stepping stone," by which to elevate 
their social state, in, and of itself. Forslaves — or those 
who "were bought with thy money must needs be cir- 
cumcised." Gen. 17 : 13. 

Neither those passages which say there shall be "one 
law" for the "stranger" and "him that is home born" 
help us here, as these evidently refer to sacrifices, ordi- 
nances, he. In Lev. 24: 22, where this law occurs, it 
evidently has reference to the punishments which should 
be inflicted on the "stranger" and on him which is "born 
in the land" for breaking any of the laws previously laid 
down between the 14th and 21st verses. That also in 
Ex. 12: 49, has equal reference to the passover, 43 — 
49 v. The same remark applies to Numbers 9 : 14. 
see the context 9 to 14, Num. 15 : 14 to 16, 22 to 30. 
19 : 10. 35: 15. 

None of these passages then reier to his social, but 
to his religious or moral condition. And if the stranger 
is affected by no other laws than these, he may be born, 
live and die a slave ! And never know the sweets of lib- 
erty at all ! ! 

Neither can the passage, Lev. 19: 34, be construe.; 
any more favorably, "Shall be unto you as one born 
among you — thou shall love him as thyself." These 
are expressions which must be applied to the circumci- 
sed stranger, having reference to his adopted state ; — or 
that state in which he realized all the religious privileges 
of Israelites, by conforming to their rites and reet 
circumcision. 

Even if it be taken in its most extensive sense, this 
law cannot elevate his social condition any above that of 
the Hebrews ; — consequently, he could be a slave sii 
years, for this they themselves were liable to. It is 
true, this passage and also Dcut. 10: 19, may be ta- 
2 



14 

ken in this extended sense, yet when all things are con- 
sidered, it is fully as probable, that they refer to their 
religious privileges exclusively, as to any other. For it 
must be remembered, that parents and their children, 
all went under the general appellation of "strangers." — 
And these children, as well as their parents were bought 
for bond-men by the Israelites — Lev. 25 : 44 — 46. And 
when in their possession, they were circumcised. Gen. 
17 ;- 12. Of course, they had a right to all the Mosaic 
Ordinances ; — but were bond-men notwithstanding. And 
these were to be unto them "as those born among 
them" and to be loved as they love themselves. Just so 
now. The poor slave who has the love of God shed 
abroad in his heart, is loved by his Christian master as 
he loves himself, and is to him as one of his own chil- 
dren. He fellowships with him — partakes of the eu- 
charistic symbols of our Lord's death and sufferings 
with him, and treats him, in every respect, as a brother 
in Christ. 

SECTION 4. 
Did slavery exist anciently among the chil- 
dren of Israel, or did it not ? 

If the existence of slavery must be proved from^ the 
occurrence of that term in the Bible, we must undoubt- 
edly say, that evil never existed in Old Testament 
times. Yet, if there were not slaves in this period of 
the world, there certainly existed an anomalous set of 
beings for whom it is very difficult to find a classifica- 
tion. As an instance we may mention the Gibeonites 
Josh. 9: 23, 27. — In Lev. 25 : 6 we have four differ- 
ent grades of individuals enumerated — 1st the Israelite— 
2d his servant and maid — 3d his hired servant — and 4th 
the stranger that sojourned with him. What all this 
assemblage of human kind could be, unless some of them 
were slaves, it is hard to divine. In other places they 
tell us about "buying servants," and of "redeeming ser- 
vants" &ic. all of which expressions seem hard to be un- 
derstood unless slaves are meant. 

That the answer of the question proposed may appear 



15 

as satisfactory as possible, we shall prove it 1st. by 
Scripture texts ; and 2d. by establishing, as far as pos- 
sible, Irom the same authority, the various characteris- 
tics by which slavery, even in our day, is known. 

1st. Scripture proof, by texts. Numerous are the 
passages which make it appear extremely probable, if 
they do not place it beyond a doubt, that slavery did 

exist among the ancients. We will now mention a few 
in which we suppose slavery is recognized. 

"He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought 
with thy money, must needs be circumcised." Gen. 17 : 
13. The individual that is bought in this case, Dr. 
Clarke calk a "slave." See also the 27th verse. For 
he (Isaac) had possessions of herds and great store of 
servants. Gen. 26 : 14. Here is more than an inti- 
mation that these "servants" were Isaac's "possession." 
Property in man !— Gen. 29 : 24, 29, where the maids 
Zilpah and Bilhah are given to Rachael and Leah, see 
also Gen. 16: 2. "And whosoever lieth with a wo- 
man that is a bond-maid, she shall be scourged; they 
shall not be put to death because she was not free." — 
Lev. 19 : 20. The woman in this case must have been 
a slave. Had she been free, the law would have re- 
quired her life. See Deut. 22: 23, 24. "If his mas- 
ter have given him a wife, and she have borne him sons 
or daughters, then the wife and her children shall be her 
masters, (i. e. slaves,) but he shall go out by himself," 
(i. e. from slavery) Ex. 21 : 4. Who but the master 
of a slave, has the right to give a servant his wife ? And 
then to claim her afterwards, together with her children : 
In Ex. 22 : 3, we have a law by which, in certain ca- 
ses, a human being may be sold! And that too to pay a 
demand out against him ! ! "Thou shah not deliver un- 
to his master the servant which is escaped from his mas- 
ter unto thee." Deut. 23:15. If this servant is not 
q slave, we cannot comprehend the propriety of the pre- 
cept. — "Notwithstanding if he continue a day or two. 
lie shall not be punished : for he is his money." Ex. 
o\ : 21. — Here a servant is acknowledged to be his mas- 

er's property ! — of course his slave, "If the priest hnj 



16 

any soul with his money — he shall not eat of it." Lev, 
22: 11. Both thy bond-men and thy bond-maids which 
thou shalt have shall be of the heathen that are round 
about you ; of them shall ye buy bond-men and bond- 
maids. Moreover, of the children of the strangers that 
do sojourn among you of them shall ye buy, and of their 
families that are with you, which they begat in your 
land ; and they shall be your possession. And ye shall 
take them as an inheritance for your children after you, 
to inherit them for a possession ; they shall be your bond- 
men forever. Lev. 25 : 44 — 46 ; see also verse 6. If 
these passages do not inculcate the idea of slavery — of 
property in man — an inheritance to be entailed upon 
children — we cannot comprehend words. 

Can rationality doubt, in the face of all the foregoing 
texts, the existence of ancient slavery ? If those indi- 
viduals of whom they speak were not slaves, we confess 
we are at a loss for a classification for them. It will in- 
deed require argument to prove that there are any now 
in existence, or ever loas ! Of course, all the "hue and 
cry" that is now raised against slavery is a vain beating 
the air, — the confused ebullitions of a disordered brain ! 

2d. Proved by its characters. Characters by which 
it is known that certain individuals anciently were slaves 

A certain author* tells us, "It is true that a certain, 
kind of slavery was tolerated by some of the Old Testa- 
ment writers ; but then it differed radically from the sys- 
tem of slave-holding, which prevails now in these Linked 
States." This statement is in perfect keeping with ma- 
ny others with which he abounds. An individual who 
has eye-sight keen enough to see "nearly three millions 
of American citizens — doomed to suffer a worse bond- 
age" or oppression than even the "children of Israel'' 
suffered in Egypt, must have a state of that "seeing or- 
gan" strongly verging to morbific. 

It is somewhat unfortunate that he did not tell us what 
this "certain kind of slavery" was ; whether it was "sla- 
very to sin, to the devil," or "to one another." Yet 
notwithstanding the door to this latitude is thus left wide 

"Testimony of God against slavery. 



17 

open; we do suppose the slavery of one individual to 
another is intended. If slavery existed anciently, it 
seems difficult to understand how it could be different 
from that of more modern days. 

For slavery now is nothing more than the possessio?i 
of the liberties of one man by another. And if an- 
cient slavery was radically different — different from the 
bottom, — the very root different ; — it is extremely hard 
for a person of ordinary understanding tf> have a definite- 
idea of it. 

As there has been, of late, a good deal said about the 
slavery in the Southern States of the Union ; we shall 
avail ourselves of the definition given to slavery in one 
or two of those slaveholding States ; and then see wheth- 
er any or all of these features existed in that of the an- 
cients. 

"A slave is one who is in the power of a master to 
whom he belongs. The master may sell him, dispose 
of his person, his industry, his labor ; he can do noth- 
ing, possess nothing, nor acquire any thing but which 
must belong to his master." Louisiana Code Art. 3. 

•'Slaves shall be deemed, taken, reputed, and adjudg- 
ed to be chattels personal in the hands of their masters 
and possessors to all intents and purposes whatsoever.'" 
Laws of S. Carolina. 

In these definitions the following particulars seem to 
be noticed : 

1st. The liberty of the slave is in the hands of hi* 
master. — Consequently, 

2d. The slave may be bought or sold ; — 

)3d. The product of his labor belongs not to himself, 
but to his master. 

4th. The master possessing the slave's liberties he 
can possess nothing of his own without the consent of 
his master. 

5th. Slaves are considered by S. Carolina, as ''Chat- 
tels personal" — that is, liable to be taken as proper! v 
for the payment of debts, or the satisfaction of demands. 

In viewing these several items, it will be seen that 
the four last grow out of ihe first. For if the libertv of" 
2* 



18 

the slave is out o/his own hands, it is evident that thai 
person into whose hands that liberty is lodged, has all 
power over that slave, which that liberty would have 
conferred upon himself, were it in his own possession.- — 
Hence, if the slave who has his "liberty," has a right 
to labor for himself — to accumulate property — and to 
"sue and be sued," — possessing all the rights of free 
citizens; — then it follows, if this liberty is taken from 
him, none of tbe^e rights accrue to him. For if all his 
liberties are gone; all his rights are gone. And his 
rights will disappear just in proportion to the diminution 
of his liberty. Therefore that individual who cannot 
"sue," cannot be "sued." If a slave receive any cor- 
poreal injury, therefore from any individual — aside from 
his master — for which he would be entitled to compensa- 
tion if/ree, or possessed his liberty ; that compensation 
necessarily accrues to the master who possesses his liber- 
ty. And this was a custom among the Hebrews as well 
as now among the Moderns. Ex. 21 : 32. On the 
same principle too is it, that a servant who hires him- 
self to another to labor for a certain time, relinquishes his 
liberty .to work for himself, or his right to claim the pro- 
duct of his labor during that time, for a certain sum — 
no matter whether it be for a dollar a year or a thousand 
dollars. The employer possesses the liberties of that ser- 
vant for that stipulated time, and can demand, and obtain 
restitution by law, if that servant either labors for him- 
self, or claims the product of his labor during this time 
without his master's consent. And this restitution may 
be obtained of the servant, if otherwise Jree ; if not, of 
his father, master, or guardian. And why ? Because 
the master is supposed to have given the servant the 
just value of all the product of his labor during this 
time. Would the master's claim be any less strong 
for a restitution if he had given him but one dollar for the 
whole time ? And would it be any more strong if the 
compensation had been a thousand dollars ? It certainly 
would not. The claim would have been equally strong 
in either case. The amount of compensation then has 
nothing to do with the claim. But the amount of ' resti- 



19 

iution will depend on the value of the servant's services. 
The question whether the servant let himself, — or wheth- 
er he was let by his father, — his master, — or his guardi- 
an, we have nothing to do with here. The simple loss 
of the servant's liberty for the time specified, so far as 
the contract extended, is all we have been contending 
for, — and that only so far as to deprive himself of all 
''right" to his time and labor, — which we contend are 
his master's. 

All that will be absolutely necessary to prove then in 
relation to ancient slavery is, the simple particular — the 
loss of their liberty. Yet we shall adduce some facts and 
inferences which go to establish other particulars. These 
we shall now attend to. But in attending to this, we do 
not propose, neither indeed is it necessary, to produce a 
''Thus saith the Lord" in order to confirm any one par- 
ticular. If we should produce facts and inferences suf- 
ficient to carry conviction to any unprejudiced mind, it is 
all we wish. 

I. It will appear therefore in \]ne first place, that the 
individuals whom we call slaves, did not possess their 
own liberty, from the simple fact of their designation 
— "servants ." And this simple term is sufficient of it- 
self, without any other fact, to prove the point under 
consideration satisfactorily ; until it is proved that these 
servants labored a definite period of time for a stipula- 
ted price. For the term "servant," without any restric- 
tive term, is taken in a similar sense with the term 
-'man" without an article. Therefore if it is just to 
consider the phrase, "A candid temper is proper for 
man," to mean that this temper is proper for all man- 
kind ; it is equally just to consider the phrase ; " And 
had maid-servants and men-servants, "* as implying that 
all these servants were slaves. For since there is no 
words to modify the meaning of the term, "servant--." 
we are constrained to believe them as serving, in this 
case, their master Jacob in every possible way that was 
desired, — and that too as long as they lived. It matters 
not how Jacob came by them. If he bought them 

I Gen. 30; 43. 



20 

he had a right so to do ; — if he "stole" them, th<* 
worse it would be for him. But either of these ways r 
or any other, touching his possession of their liberties, 
we have nothing to do with in relation to the term. We 
must consider them slaves in every place where the 
term occurs, unless that signification is modified by some 
collateral circumstance or expression to which the term 
is attached, until it is satisfactorily proved to the contrary. 

2. In the twenty-fifth chapter of Leviticus there is a 
law providing, that if a Hebrew "wax poor and sell him- 
self to a stranger," he may "be redeemed by one of his 
brethren." Redeemed from what 1 Does a man 
who lets himself simply to another, require to be re- 
deemed! Is it rational to suppose, that a man in the 
possession of all the proper liberties with which nature 
ever endowed him, can be redeemed? If so, please to 
tell us from what ? His liberties are the only objects of 
the redemption. There is nothing else — there can be 
nothing. 

3. We have another law in the commencement of the 
twenty-second chapter of Exodus, in which it is provi- 
ded that "it a man steals" and be found out ; and far- 
ther, should he have nothing to pay :" he may be "sold 
for the theft"— sold for the theft! Who sells this indi- 
vidual }— himself 1 — his neighbors 1 — or the auctioneer 1 
And what do they sell ? — his body, independently of 
the liberty he has of exercising that body ? Or his liber- 
ty of using his body ? Evidently the latter. For what 
benefit would the thief s body be to the buyer unless he 
could control that body ; and how could he do that un- 
less he had the control of the liberties which regulated 
it ? - It therefore follows the thfef s liberties alone was to 
be sold. And if sold, then out of his own control. — 
Consequently, he was "in the power of [the] master to 
whom he belonged." 

4. In the thirtieth chapter of Genesis we have some 
account of the relation which the maids Bilhah and Zil- 
pah bore to their mistresses Rachael and Leah, to whom 
they were given by L»ban. 

By looking over their history as it is recorded in Gen- 



21 

esis, the following points appear evident, viz : 1. These 
maids were in the gift of Laban. 2. Consequently, in 
virtue of that gift, Rachael and Leah possessed all the 
power over the bodies of their respective maids which 
this gift could bestow. 

These maids could not have been in the gift of Laban 
had they been simply hired. For in that case Laban 
could have done with them nothing different from the 
contract by which their services were engaged to him. 
And probability is entirely against the idea that a con- 
tract could have been made between them granting La- 
ban that control over them which he undoubtedly held ; 
the power of giving them to whomsoever he would. It 
is sufficiently evident then, that just in proportion as they 
were controlled by Laban, they could not control them- 
selves. And if Laban could give them away whenever 
it pleased him, the servants themselves could not have 
that power — of course, the control of their own liberties 
was out of their hands. For what control of liberty 
does that individual have, who can be given away by 
his master ? Farther, 

Laban being a rightful owner of the liberties of these 
servants, he could, by gift or otherwise, confer the same 
power of possession to another. Therefore, when his 
daughters Rachael and Leah were married to the pa- 
triarch Jacob, Laban gave them each a servant — to 
Rachael he gave Bilhah, to Leah, Zilpah. The lib- 
erties of these two maids were in the possession of their 
respective mistresses. The proof of this position is sul- 
ficiently evident from the manner in which Rachael and 
Leah dealt with them. For without even asking l>il- 
hah's consent, or consulting her mind, Rachael gave Ja- 
cob this, her handmaid, saying, at the same time, '-'she 
shall bear upon my knees," and therefore "I may also 
have children by her." Gen. 30: 3. And when Bil- 
hah had borne Jacob a son, Rachael said, v. 6, "God 
hath judged me and hath also heard my voice and hath 
given me a son." The same remarks apply to the case ol 
Zilpah, Leah's maid — see 9 to 13 vs. of the same chap. 

The history of these two maids then furnishes us with 



one, at least, of the distinctive characters of slavery — the 
loss of liberty. For if Rachael and Leah did not hold 
the liberties of their respective servants in their own 
hands, it is very difficult to produce a clear solution of 
their conduct toward them. 

We might also mention the case of Hagar. For by 
reading some account of her history in the 16th and 
21st chapters of Genesis, we find that the same relation 
existed between her and Sarai, as between Bilhah 
and Rachael. But the evidence of that relation — the 
possession of Hagar's liberty by Sarai — is expressed in 
stronger terms. For when Hagar "had conceived," 
"her mistress was despised in her eyes." "But Abram 
said unto Sarai, Behold thy maid is in thy hand ; do to 
her as it pleaseth thee." Here, then, is a recognition 
by Abram of the right that his wife had "to do to [Ha- 
gar] as it might please" her. A question then occurs, 
could she have had this right if all her maid's liberties 
were not in her own hands ? For the phrase, "as it 
pleaseth thee," is an expression of great latitude, and 
implies that all her pleasure might be done. Accord- 
ingly, we find that "Sarai dealt hardly with her," so 
that Hagar "fled from her face." And, according to Dr. 
Clarke, the phrase "dealt hardly," means, she "afflicted 
her — the term implying stripes and hard usage, to bring 
down the body and humble the mind." No wonder then 
that the poor slave fled! But where did she flee? To 
her house, among her friends — her brothers and sisters 
and brothers' relatives ? Did she commence in her old 
business, or in the concerns of her old household affairs 
in which she was engaged previously to her engaging, 
or "hiring out" with Sarai, Abram's wife ? O no ! She 
fled to the "wilderness," "and the angel of the Lord 
found her by the fountain in the way to Shur." And what 
did he say to her. Did he tell her not to submit to 
oppression ? That her rights were as good as Sarai's ? — 
that they were equal to hers ? And that it is "piracy" 
to "return a slave escaped" from her mistress ? — that it 
is sin to hold property in human flesh ? Nothing like it. 
He says, "return to thy mistress and submit thyself un~ 



23 

der her hands." What a comment this on the the text 
of modern anti-slavery theologians. 

But what does this remark of the angel to Hagar im- 
ply ? Does it contradict the principle involved in the re- 
mark of Abram to Sarai ? — that she possessed the liber- 
ties of her maid ? "Return to thy mistress." In this 
simple expression is contained all that is necessary to 
prove the point : For Sarai is acknowledged the "mis- 
tress" and Hagar the "servant" and that too by the "an- 
gel of the Lord," which relation cannot exist where 
both parties have the right to do just as they please ; or 
where one does not possess the liberties of the other. 

That Sarai possessed her maid's liberties is not only 
evident ; but that she exercised the authority this pos- 
session gave her, is equally evident : as we have already 
seen in the circumstance of Sarai's afflicting her. Gen. 
16 : 6. But we have another instance in the 21st 
chap, where Sarah commandeth Abraham to "cast her 
out" together with her "child." And this Abraham did 
although with a sorrowful heart at first till comforted by 
"God." 

If the "liberties" of Hagar were not "in the hands" 
of Sarah, we cannot see by what right she conducted 
herself toward Hagar in the manner she did. How 
she could sacrafice her chastity ! and assume her ser- 
vant's offspring as her own ; could deal with her so 
roughly as she did for a crime which she herself had 
been the mearis of bringing about: and then send her 
out of her house with nothing but a little ''bread and a 
bottle of water into a wide world of misery and want, to 
provide, without means, for herself and child, is an enig- 
ma of difficult solution on any other principle. And, if 
these facts do not prove most forcibly that Hagar had 
no liberties of her own aside from those of her mistress 
— and that she "was in the hands of [a mistress] to 
whom she belonged," — "that the [mistress] could dis- 
pose of her" — "that she acquired nothing but what be- 
longed .to the mistress," even her own child — see verse 
2 chap. 16. — they prove nothing ! 

11. The buying and selling of "human jlesh /" a- 



24 

mong the ancients as a characteristics of slavery. — • 
From the scripture it appears, that the genuine children 
of the stock of Israel could be made merchandize of — i. e. 
bought and sold, — as well as others. This will appear 
in the sequel. We will now mention a few places where 
"buying and selling" is recognized. 

And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised a- 
raong you, every man child in your generations, he that 
is born in thy house, or bought with money of any stran- 
ger which is not of thy seed. — Gen. 17 : 12. 

He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought 
with thy money, shall be circumcised. Gen. 17 : 13. 

And Abraham took all that were born in his house, 
and all that were bought with his money, &c. Gen. 
17 : 23. 

And all the men of his house, born in his house, and 
bought with money of the stranger were circumcised with 
him. Gen. 17: 21. 

But erery man's servant that is bought for money. 
when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat there- 
of. Ex. 12: 44. 

If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed 
for him; (the thief) for he should make full restitution ; 
if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. — 
Ex.22: 3. 

Both thy bondmen and thy bondmaids, which thou 
shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about 
you ; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids, 
Lev. 25: 44. 

Moreover of the children of the strangers that do so- 
journ among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their fam- 
ilies that are with you, which they begat in your land : 
and they shall be your possession. Lev. 25 : 45. 

And if a sojourner or a stranger wax rich by thee, and 
thy brother that dwelleth by him wax poor, and sell him- 
self unto the stranger or sojourner by thee — after that 
he is sold he may be redeemed again. Lev. 25 : 47, 
48. This is a case where a Hebrew could sell himself 
into slavery — i. e. sell all his liberties to the stranger — 
else, why redeem him ? Why make the law to grant him 



25 

freedom at the end of six years ? Free from what ? If 
thou buy an Hebrew, six years he shall serve : and in 
the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. Ex. 21 : 2. 

And if a man sell his daughter to be a maid-servant, 
she shall not go out as the men-servants do. Ex. 21 : 7. 

And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen 
poor, and be sold unto thee, thou shaltnot compel him to 
serve as a bond-servant : but as an hired servant, he. 
Lev. 25 : 39. 

Here is recognized the right in the master to deal 
with a Hebrew thus sold to him after the manner he 
would to any slave ; therefore he is cautioned against ex- 
ercising that authority "with rigor," v. 43. Otherwise, 
why the caution ? What its need ? 

And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew 
wontan, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years ; 
then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from 
thee. And when thou sendest him out free from thee, 
-thou shalt not let him go away empty. Thou shalt fur- 
nish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, 
and out of thy wine-press. Deut. 15: 12 — 14. 

Was not this Hebrew in the "power of the master to 
whom he belonged ?" Did he acquire any thing of his 
own ? Was not his labor his master's ? Could not that 
master sell it? — and dispose of it in any manner he saw 
fit ? Else why command the master to let him go free 
after six years ? Why command him to "lurnish hun 
liberally" at the time of his departure, if the servant had 
been laboring for wages ? Why say, "thou shalt not let 
him go away empty}" Where is the consistency of this 
law and its provisions, if the Hebrew was merely hired ? 
working for wages ? See also Lev. 22 : 1 1 . 

III. The product of their labor belonged net to them- 
selves, but to the master. — This must be the case in the 
very nature of things. For if a man has either hired ser- 
vants or slaves, it is because he needs their labor. It 
would be a palpable inconsistency for a man to hire a 
servant and let him work for himself, while he himsell 
received none of its benefits. Or even to feed, clothe 



and protect a slave, and not have that slave's labor pro- 
mote his own interest. But farther, 

Is it presumed that the ancients would buy men and 
women, while they thereby get the control of them, 
and not receive the product of their labors ? Did they 
not claim it as their right ? And are there any among 
us possessing hardihood enough to deny this ? If there 
.are, we would ask them, reasonably to establish the fact 
that Abram's servants did not work for him? — or, in 
other words, that he did not receive all their labor with- 
out any other compensation than food and raiment ? Did 
not the servants of Isaac and Jacob keep their master's 
flocks ? and have We any evidence that they claimed 
any part of their labor, or received any compensation 
different from that of the servants of Abram ? And a- 
gain ; did not Sarai, Rachael and Leah act in perfect 
consonance with the idea that all their respective maids 
were, could be, or could have was lawfully their own ? 
And was it not on this principle that these women gave 
their respective maids when barren themselves, to their 
husbands, that they might claim the offspring of these 
maids as their own! 

But we have more evidence to the point. So far was 
a servant from possessing any thing of his own, — even 
the reward for personal injury from a source different 
from his master, — that he could not, by the law of Mo- 
ses, claim the compensation for his own sufferings. "If 
the ox shall push a man-servant, or maid-servant ; he. 
(the owner of the ox) shall give unto their (the slave's) 
master, thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be 
stoned." Ex. 21 : 32. Hence, says Dr. Clarke, "a 
slave was valued at four pounds ten shillings!" If the 
principle of holding property in man is not recognized 
here, — and that the slave could possess nothing 
of his own — that all he was, could be, or have, was 
absolutely his master's ; we do not know what language 
or what sentiments it inculcates. — Again, 

"When thou sendest him out free from thee, thou 
shalt not let him go away empty." "But shall furnish 
him liberally out of thy flock," he. Deut. 15 : 13, 14. 



n 

This was spoken of a Hebrew who had sold himself 
into slavery. Now this slave or servant labored eithei 
for hire or claimed a certain portion of his labor ; or he 
did not. If he did, then the fear of his going away emp- 
ty at the end of six years, was groundless, and that pro- 
vision in the law useless ; as the slave possessed proper- 
ty of his own. But if he did not, then there was hu- 
manity in the requirement of the law. Now, which po- 
sition is it best to take ; — the one which supposes that 
ancient slavery was not like the modern form — that the 
slave could claim a part or all his labor; consequently, 
making this provision of the law "null" — there being no 
cause for its foundation in fact; or the other one, which 
supposes that all his labor was his master's — consequent- 
ly, that he could possess nothing of himself — that the law 
was founded in wisdom — and that the slave w 7 as truly 
and indeed "empty" without this munificence from his 
master ? 

From the evidence now adduced it appears, that the 
slaves' labor was the exclusive property of their masters ; 
and consequently they could not labor for themselves. 
They were utterly debarred from it — all they had and 
were, belonged not to themselves but to others. 

IV. Could slaves be considered as "chattels personal" 
among the ancients 1 Or be taken to satisfy a demand.* 

It may be doubted by some whether this question 
should be answered in the negative or affirmative. Yet 
there are probably as many points, if not more, to favor 
the affirmative, as there are to establish the negative. 
For it cannot be doubted, we think, from the evidence 
that has been adduced, that slaves were considered In 
their masters and treated, as their property. They 
could do with them just as they thought proper — why 
not then pay a debt previously contracted as well as to ex- 
change them fur money in ^present contract ? We can see 
nothing more appaling in the one course, than in the other. 

Indeed, the children of poor people were liable to sei- 
zure, and to be sold into slavery lor the debts of theii 

*Whether the law allowed of this, we have no post lie: eridence. 



parents ; why not their slaves ? We therefore find the 
following language in the sacred volume : 

"Thy servant my husband is dead ; and thou knowest 
that thy servant did fear the Lord : and the creditor 
is come to take unto him my two sons to be bondmen" 
2 Kings 4:1. The thief also was to be sold to make 
restitution, if he had nothing of his own to pay. Ex. 
22: 3. 

V. Provision, by the Mosaic Law, for the separa- 
tion of a man and his ivife. 

Notwithstanding the evils of slavery have been glow- 
ingly painted before us in all the colors of fancy and im- 
agination ; and our ears have been horrified with the 
sound of defenceless females and helpless innocence torn 
from the embrace of paternal affection, by which to paint 
the sin and enormity of having slaves in our posession ; 
yet it is equally evident all this pomposity can never 
"turn one hair black or white." The existing evils of 
slavery remain the same in spite of either commendation 
or reproach. For slavery has intrinsic evils connected 
with its very existence, which it is out of the power of 
exaggeration, either way, to extinguish. 

And however harsh the chord of family saparation may 
vibrate on the ear of modern humanity ; yet it was cer- 
tain that the law of Moses, recognized, in certain cases, 
the separation of the wife and children from the husband 
and father. 

We may be told that in this case the husband is not 
obliged to leave his wife. And what of that ? He has 
only a choice of, what Abolitionists call, "sins." For he 
must either separate himself from his wife and children ; 
or have his ear punched and remain a slave forever! 
What a happy condition such a Hebrew must be in ! !• — 
The law is as follows : 

"If his master have given him a wife, and she have 
borne him sons or daughters ; the wife and her children 
shall be her masters, but he shall go out by himself." 
Ex. 21 : 4. — see also 5, 6 verses. 

That is, — at the end of six years the husband shall 
be free ; but the wife and children shall still continue in 



w 

slavery ! Well was it for Moses he did not live in the 
nineteenth century. Had he, he would have been con- 
demned never to have seen heaven, or to have enjoyed 
Christian happiness or the fellowship of saints ! ! 

SECTION 5. 

From among what people were Slaves taken : 
We think it most probable they consisted of individu- 
als from the children of Israel and of uncircumcised 
strangers — possibly, of some of the circumcised class ; — 
and among the patriarchs, in all probability, of Egyp- 
tians, particularly those belonging to Abram. 

It does not appear that the Israelites could make slaves 
of any of the Canaanites, for these, in consequence of Idol- 
atry, were to be utterly destroyed ; of these, it is said T 
"thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth." Deut. 20 : 
16. — "But thou shalt utterly destroy them ; namely the 
Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Per- 
izzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites ; as the the Lord 
thy God hath commanded thee."* v. 17 — Deut. 7: 2. 

*Notwithstanding the above strict command to destroy all these na- 
tions, it appears there were some left whose children existed in the 
days of Solomon. 1 hese did Solomon oblige to pay "tribute." See 
Judges 1 : 21, 27— 35.— 3 : 1—5. Josh 15 : 63—17: 12, 13. 

As for all the people that were left of the Hillites, and the Amor- 
ites, and the Perizzites and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, which were 
not of Israel, but of their children who wero left after them in the 
land, whom the children of Israel consumed not, them did Solomon 
make to pav tribute until this day/' 2. Chron. 6: 7, 8, "bond set- 
nicer 1. Kings!): 21. 

What were these individuals who had to do bond service? Wirt 
they slaves, properly speaking ; or were they nations •subordinate :" 

That the individuals here mentioned were not slaves, proper! v 
speaking, we think is evident from the following considerations, viz 

1st. Several of the tribes ot the children of Israel were not able to 
drive them out; of course unable to make states of them. See Jnd| 
1 : 27,34.— Josh. 15: 03— 17: 12, &c. 

2d. The objects expressed in the 3d chap, of Judges, (from the first 
to the fourth verse*.) could not, or would not, have been subservient 
to the ends designed, had these nations been under slave subjection t»> 
the Israelites. 

How could defenceless slaves prove the Israelites ? llotr, ainl ■'■ 
what use, learn them war ? 

3d. Nations are expressly named, and not individuals particularly, 
—showing they had a government of their own. Judge* 3: 3 

" See also Chip 2: 22. 

3* 



30 

Other nations however which were "very far off," and 
which are not "of the cities of these nations,'' it is 
quite probable, were made slaves from conquests in war, 
or tributaries and servants. See Deut. 20 : 10 — 15. 

But there may be a question in the «minds of some 
whether these captives were private or public possession 
— i. e. — whether they belong to individuals or to the 
state. 

That Hebrews themselves were frequently slaves it 
seems no unprejudiced mind can have scarcely the shad- 
ow of a doubt. The texts which have been already ad- 
duced, it would seem, are amply sufficient to prove the 
point unassisted by any other evidence. That selected 
from Deut. 15 : 12 — 18 is peculiarly to the point. In 
looking over the points noted in this law, the following 
seem to be most prominent, viz. : 

4t.li. They continued to he idolaters v. 5 — 7, — consequently, not 
under israeliti.sh dominion, for by the law, idolatry was punished 
with death. See Deut. 7: 26-8: 49,20—13: 6-10,-17: 3-5, 
"He that sacrinceth unto any God, save unto the Lord only, he sha'l 
be utterly destroyed." Ex. 22 : 20. 

5th. Ail Israelites;— and all that belonged to their house or fami- 
lies, were to be circumcised. Gen. 17 ; 12— 14.— "Every man child 
that is born in thy house, or bought with money ot any stranger, 
which is not ofthy seed" must be circumcised. — Observe "of any 
stranger." This compared with the 27 v., would make it appear, 
tjiat the Israelites could not have even slaves, unless they were cir- 
cumcised. If so, how could the unciroumcised, idolatrous Canaan- 
ites be otherwise to the Israelites than simple "tributaries?" Com- 
pare, also, the 44th and 45th verses of the 12th chap, of Ex. 

6th. Because they were engaged in great public works; — building 
cities lor "store," for "chariots," for "horsemen," and that which Sol- 
omon desired to build in Jerusalem, and in Lebanon and in all the 
land of his dominion." 1 Kings 9 : 19. But of the children of Isra- 
el did Solomon make no servants for his Work;" that is, for doing 
their labor in building their cities. 2 Chron. 8 : 9. 

It is true, people employed in this way may sometimes be called, 
slaves; but i'n that case, they must be spoken of more particularly as 
individuals ;— for we cannot very consistently conceive how any set 
of people can be known by the appellation of a "nation," a "tribe," 
of a "community" when "that nation, tribe, or community possess 
none of the characteristics which designate such a body. For no 
one body is known from another but by its character. If these na- 
tions were indeed slaves, in the strict sense of the word, their charac- 
teristics as a nation, a tribe, or a community would have been annihi- 
lated, and could be spoken of only as individuals, and as nothing else. 
But instead of this, their situation was so different, that these nations 
were a continual annoyance to the children of Israel by reason of their 
idolatry. 



1st. That the individual specified was a Hebrew. — 
•if thy brother a Hebrew" &c. 

2d. That this Hebrew did not sell himself, but was 
sold by some other person. "Be sold unto thee," &c. a 
passive verb. 

3d. Consequently that a price was paid for him. — 
How, otherwise, could he be sold. 

4th. The term of time which he should serve was not 
the result of any contract whatever; but was absolutely 
fixed by law, over which neither the buyer, or slave had 
any control. "In the 7th year thou shaft let him go 
free." 

5th. That while in his purchaser's employ, he accu- 
mulated nothing for himself. "Shalt not let him go 
empty away." 

6th. When he left his master at the end of six years, 
he did not go in virtue of any stipulated claim he had 
to be released : but in consequence of the injunctions of 
the law on the master. "Thou shalt let him." "When 
thou sendest him he." The 12th and 13th verses there- 
fore teaches us, that a "Hebrew" "was sold" "by some" 
third person for a "price" during a "term of time speci- 
fied by law." And that during this time, that Hebrew 
"earned nothing for himself" and at the end of six 
years he could go out. — not inconsequence of any pow- 
er of his own to command it, or by the force of any con- 
tract, — but "by the strong arm of the law" the master 
was obliged to give him his liberty if desired. For any 
and every slave can refuse a favor if they choose. See 
Ex. 21 : 2—4. 

The following inferences seem obvious. 
1st. That that Hebrew must be a slave. For, 
2d. He was the property of his master ; — 
3d. Had no liberties of his own ; — 
4th. Was made merchandise of; or sold for money. — 
5th. Possessed nothing; and never would so long as 
he bore that relation to his master which he then did. 

Now if these are not the characteristics of a slave, we 
know not what to make of them. 

Yet notwithstanding the master had this slave's liber- 



32 

ty, the moral law under which every Israelite was pla- 
ced, as well as Christians now, which requires man "to 
love the Lord your God and to serve him with all your 
heart and with all your soul." Deut. 11: 13 — to 
"love the stranger." Deut. 10 : 19 — and "to love thy 
neighbor as thyself." Lev. 19: 18, obliged the Isra- 
elites neither to oppress nor vex others, even their 
slaves. Therefore it is stated in the 14th and 15th ver- 
ses : "thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock,, 
and out of thy floor, and out of thy wine press ; of that 
wherewith the Lord thy God hath blessed thee thou 
shalt give unto him" when he departeth from thee. And 
thou shalt remember that thou wast a bond man in the 
land of Egypt, and the Lord thy God redeemed thee : 
therefore I command thee this thing this day.'''' 

Now on what is this provision based 1 On the pov- 
erty — the absolute need of the recipient ; or on some- 
thing else : — a mark of respect — a token of friendship 
for a hired servant ? — Can it be the latter? Suppose 
they were on untriendly terms when they parted. Could 
this donation be natural? Would it be wise in law to 
make provision for such an appropriation ? Surely not. 
All laws are based on necessity. There certainly could 
be no necessity for this. 

We are left then with the only alternative of suppos- 
ing the recipient indeed poor, and in need of the dona- 
tion. 

It cannot be supposed in this case that the servant 
had received wages but had squandered it away ; unless 
we suppose that all such hired servants were alike spend- 
thrifts. But in that case would the Omnipotent God 
make laws by which to have the money thus spent re- 
funded ? Would he thus countenance profligacy ? No, 
verily ! Whenever he makes provision for assistance, 
he does it because there is need of it. The poor slave 
in the present case was not awarded with wages — he had 
nothing ! and was now about to leave his master and 
home and "look up" a residence of his own somewhere 
else. How proper then that he shonld have a portion 
of "whatever the Lord had blessed his- master with" to 



33 

help him on his journey and to assist him until the earth 
could produce for him her bounties. 

But there is a reason urged upon the master for do- 
ing this. What is it?— "Remember that thou wast a 
"bond-man" in the land of Egypt"— As much as if he 
had said ; "Do unto thy slave now, as thou wouldst wish 
to be done by wert thou a slave," for, "Remember thou 
wast a bond-man," he. when thou hadst no one t© do 
these good offices to you ; therefore thou wast brought 
out of Egypt by a miracle by "the Lord thy God."— 
See Deut. 29 : 5. 

Notwithstanding these provisions for his comfort, "If 
he say unto thee 1 will not go away from thee, because 
he loveth thee and thine house, because he is well with 
thee ? Or, "because I love my wife and my children, 
I will not go out free,"— Ex. 21 : 5— then thou shall 
take an awl, and thrust it through his ear unto the door, 
and he shall be his servant/orever / Deut. 15: 16, 17. 
In looking over these texts the following particulars 
seem conceded, viz. 

1st. That the slave was contented and happy. 
2d. That he loved his master, and his house. 
3d. That, if the master gave him his wife, he must 
leave her and her children, if he left the master. See 
Ex. 21 : 4. Yet he loved his master, notwithstanding. 
See v. 5. 

4th. By having his ear "bored," he is made a servant 
forever; without any wages other than "living" and 
"protection." — of course a slave! 

Nearly the same positions may be proved from Jere- 
miah: From the 34th chap, of this prophet it appears 
plain enough that the Israelites themselves considered 
these "sold Hebrews" not as hired servants, but as 
slaves. But having imbibed the spirit of the world, they 
had overleaped the law of Moses and instead of letting 
their Hebrew slaves be free every seventh year, thcy 
continued them in bondage. Hence the prophet up- 
braids them with, "Thus saith the Lord God ; 1 made 
a covenant with your fathers in the day 1 brought them 
forth out of the land of Egypt, out ot the house of 



34 

uondmen, saying, at the end of seven years let ye go 
every man his brother, an Hebrew, which hath been 
sold unto thee ; and when he hath served thee six 
years, thou shalt let him go free from thee : but your 
fathers hearkened not unto me neither inclined their 
'ear:' Jere. 34: 13, 14. 

But even after they had freed their captives accor- 
ding to the command of the Lord by the mouth of Jere- 
miah they again "turned and caused every man his ser- 
vant, and every man his handmaid whom he had set at 
liberty at their pleasure, to return, and brought them in- 
to subjection, to be unto you for servants and hand- 
maids." v. 16. 

What the propriety of calling these servants by any 
other name than slaves 1 

That strangers were slaves frequently, we have the 
fullest proof from Lev. 25 : 44 — 46. "Ye stand this 
day all of you before the Lord your God ; your cap- 
tains of your tribes, your elders, and your officers, with 
all the men of Israel. Your little ones, your wives, 
and thy stranger that is in thy camp, from the hewer 
of thy wood unto the drawer of thy water." Deut. 
•29: 10, 11. 

SECTION 6. 

Was there a difference between the Slavery 
of the Hebrews and that of Strangers ? 
So far as it concerns the loss of liberty, there was no dif- 
ference ; they were both slaves so long as they were sub- 
ject to a master. And the principal difference between 
them was, "bondmen" must be slaves so long as they 
lived, or at least, more than six years, whereas "Israel- 
ites" were to have their liberty — if they chose — in the 
sabbatical year. Therefore it was said "thou shalt not" 
compel him," — the Israelite who was poor and sold un- 
to thee, — "to serve as a bond-servant) but as a hired 
servant and as a sojourner" That is, they should not 
be in perpetual slavery like as bondmen were ; but 
"shall serve thee" — it is said immediately after — "unto 
the year of jubilee." This latter clause being evident- 



}y the opposite to "not to serve as bondmen." And 
that bondmen did serve forever is evident Jrom the 4(nh 
verse. In this respect, therefore, "thou shalt not coin- 
pel them to serve as bondmen." 

But as hired servants. For hired servants alway la- 
bor for a stipulated time. Thereby proving them to be 
slaves ; for, if hired servants, why command them to be 
treated as hired servants ? Would they not, as a matter 
of course be treated as such? They certainly would. 
Thereby disproving the idea of some, that these Israel- 
ites were nothing more than hired servants, because they 
were to serve as such, in contra-distinction to bondmen. 
But farther, 

They could not be hired servants, because these, and 
sojourners, were not circumcised. They being strang- 
ers, who, having renounced idolatry, were permitted to 
live among the Israelites ; but not to be adopted into 
their families; while slaves, who were circumcised were 
favored with all their religious privileges. Hence, 
strictly speaking according to the sense of the law, no 
circumcised Israelite could be a hired servant, neither 
an uncircumcised stranger be a slave. See Ex. 12 : 44 
and 45. That there was no exception to this, anions: 
private individuals, we do not say, — no case at present 
occurs. 

It is a singular fact that in all the dealings of the 
Lord with the children of Israel, he takes that course 
with them which shall refer them back to past scenes. 
Hence in his various injunctions upon them, he often 
adds by way of inducement and remembrance, "Ye 
were bondmen in Egypt," Sec. Hence, in the present 
case, "Thou shalt not rule over him with rigor;" lor. 
"they are my servants which I brought out of the land 
of Egypt." Evidently referring to their state of slavery 
— of their bondage in Egypt, — their oppression there ; 
and their deliverance. Hence, do not rule over thy 
brother who is a slave to thee "with rigor," as the E- 
gyptians did over thee." Ex. 1 : 13. Thou shalt not 
require of him labor beyond his strength, nor make other 
oppressive requirements of him i but "thou shalt fear the 



36 

Lord," realizing that he has power and a right to per- 
mit the same oppression to rest upon thine own head, 
which thou art exercising over thy brother who is thy 
slave. For thou ought to remember that if I had dealt 
in this oppressive manner with thee, thou wouldst have 
been this moment a bondman in Egypt, suffering all the 
oppression of thy forefathers. 

SECTION 7. 
Did the Old Testament Scriptures include un- 
der THE TERM, "OPPRESSION," &C. "SLAVERY ;" 

OR THE LOSS OF LlBERTY ? In OTHER WORDS, Was 

THE LOSS OF LlBERTY "OPPRESSION ?" 

This question we answer in the negative. Our rea- 
sons are embraced under the two following heads, viz. 

1st. Whatever was according to their law, the an- 
cients did not consider as an affliction or an oppression ; 
for this would argue their law to he unjust and cruel. 

2d. Consequently slavery was not considered by 
them an oppression, because this it allowed. 

We shall make a few remarks on each of these heads. 

In looking over the law of Moses we find the follow- 
ing points, among others, particularly specified ; viz. 

1st. A Hebrew who was in distress by reason of pov- 
erty, was to be relieved. Such an one was not to re- 
ceive either the money or the victuals of his benefac- 
tor upon usury. See Lev. 25 : 35 — And that too 
even although he be a stranger or sojourner. 

2d. But to Hebrews money must not be lent upon 
usury. Ex. 22: 25. Deut. 23: 19, but to a stranger 
(uncircumcised ?) thou may est lend upon usury, v. 20. 

3d. No pledge was to be taken of the poor Hebrew ; 
yet, if taken, must be restored bv^the going down of the 
sun. Ex. 22 : 26. Deut. 24 : '6, 10, 13, 17. 

4th. The stranger was not to be vexed or oppressed, 
"for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt." Ex. 22 : 
2 — "for ye know the heart of strangers, seeing ye were 
strangers in Egypt." Ex. 23 : 9 — "love ye therefore 
the stranger, for ye were strangers in Egypt." Deut. 
10: 19. 



si 

oth. The widow and the fatherless children not to be" 
afflicted. Ex.22: 22. Deut. 10 : 18,-27: 19. 

6th. Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbor neither rob 
him. Lev. 19: 13. The wages of him that is hired 
shall not abide with thee all night till morning. — ib. 

7. Thou shalt do no unrighteousness in judgement, ; 
thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor 
the person of the mighty; but in righteousness shalt 
thou judge thy neighbor. Lev. 19 : 15. 

These provisions of the Mosaic law no one will feel 
inclined to censure. They are based on that precept 
which is the sum of the law, "Love the Lord thy God 
with all thy heart." Deut. 11: 13. "and thy neigh- 
bor as thy self." Lev. 19 : 18. And while this law 
provides that the stranger shall be neither "vexed" nor 
"oppressed ;" it nevertheless has the following precept : 
Moreover of the children of the strangers, that do so- 
journ among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their 
families that are with you, which they begat in your land ; 
and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take 
them as an inheritance for your children after you 
to inherit them for a possession ; they shall be your 
bondmen forever." Lev. 25 : 45, 46. 

This last is as much a provision of the law of Moses, 
as that which states that the stranger shall "not be op- 
pressed." And this we say without fear of any succes- 
ful contradiction. No one will doubt but that these 
"bondmen," who were to be bought, and to be a posses- 
sion entailed from father to son, were slaves. Now it 
the stranger is not to be "oppressed," and if slaves were 
to be taken from these unoppressed strangers, must it 
not follow, as an unavoidable consequence, that pjtpres- 
sion cannot include slavery, — or the loss of one*} liber- 
ties ? 

But how shall we reconcile all tho^e places which de- 
nounce the Israelites as oppressing others ? This is very 
easily done. For, as tiie law v. , for the regula- 

tion of the- Israelites "through succeeding yea'rs^' the 
whole that the Judges, Kings or Prophets of Israel did 
or said, was based, or ought to have been, upon this 
4 



38 

law. Hence we hear Ezekiel saying ; "As for his fa- 
ther, because he cruelly oppressed, spoiled his brother 
by violence, and did that which was not good among 
his people, lo, even he shall die in his iniquity." Ez. 
18: 18. 

But if he begat a son "that seeth all his father's sins 
— neither hath eaten upon the monntains — neither hath 
oppressed any — hath not withholden the pledge — hath 
given his bread to the hungry — hath covered the naked 
— hath taken off his hand from the poor — hath not re- 
ceived usury or increase — he shall not die." Ezek. 18 : 
14—17. 

So also Zechariah : 'Execute true judgement, and 
shew mercy and compassion every man to his brother," 
saith "the Lord of hosts," oppress not the widow, nor 
the fatherless, the stranger nor the poor." But they 
refused. "They made their hearts as an adamant 
stone, lest they should hear the law, and the words 
which the Lord of hosts had sent in his spirit by the 
former prophets." Zech. 7 : 9 — 12. 

To the same point, but more explicit, is Jeremiah : 
"Thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel. I made a 
covenant with your fathers in the day that 1 brought 
them forth out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of 
bondmen, saying: At the end ol seven years let ye go 
every man his brother an Hebrew, which hath been 
sold unto thee : and when he hath served thee six yeais 
thou shalt let him go free from thee : but your fathers 
hearkened not unto me, neither inclined their ear, — but 
ye turned and polluted my name, and caused every man 
his servant, and every man his handmaid, whom he had 
set at liberty," — according as the law had provided, — ■ 
"at their pleasure, to return, and brought them into 
subjection, to be unto you for servants and for hand- 
maids." Therefore, behold, 1 proclaim liberty for you, 
saith the Lord, to the sword, to the pestilence and to 
the famine." Jere. 34 : 13, 14, 16 and 17. 

From this it evidently appears, that the Lord was not 
displeased, because these servants were obliged to labor 
for their masters six years; but because they were held 



:j9 • 

perpetually or longer than six years. In other words, 
they had broken the law. Therefore all they served 
over six years was, "oppression," as by law, their rights 
returned to them after this period ot time, hut which 
they were not allowed to exercise by their masters, — 
hence the oppression. 

In this sense we must understand Isaiah, when he 
says ; "Is not this the fast that I have chosen ? — to 
loose the bands of wickedness, — to undo the heavy bur* 
dens, — and to let the oppressed go jree, and that ye 
break every yoke ;" that is, every thing which is contra- 
ry to the law of Moses. And that the oppression here 
spoken of is to be taken in the sense we suppose — refer- 
ence to the law, — is placed beyond doubt in the verse 
following, where the particulars recognized by the law 
are enumerated. "Is it not to deal thy bread to the 
hungry — that thou bring the poor that are cast out to 
thy house — clothe the naked," &c. Isa. 58: 6, 7. 

From the above texts the following items seem to be 
proved, viz. 

1st. Whatever the law recognises, or provides for, is 
no oppression or affliction. Consequently, 

2nd. A Hebrew is not oppressed by heing a slave sia 
years. 

.'3d. A stranger is not oppressed, in being a slave du- 
ring his life, — and being entailed as property from fa- 
ther to son. 

4th. That a Hebrew's rights, or liberties, returned 
to him after six years, in consequence of the law. 

5th. If his master keep him after this, unless accor- 
ding to the provision in Deut. 15 : 16, 17, he oppres- 
ses him. For by the law he is now considered free, — 
of course, his detention is the same as the detention of 
any other free citizen. 

From these facts the following irresistable inlerencc is 
drawn : That that individual who is not, and never 
was, recognized by law us free, is not oppressed, 1 
wish to be understood here, as speaking of the law of 
Moses. For all other laws which are dictated by hu- 
man wisdom may be unjust and unequal ; but the Vlo- 



40 

saic law which was dictated by God himself must be 
equal, and do injustice to none. 

SECTION 8. 
When were slaves then said to be oppressed; 

or in what did their oppression consist? 

The answer to this has been more than intimated in 
the last section. The stranger was not to be ruled with 
rigour." Of rigorous service, Dr. Clarke gives the fol- 
lowing definition. "Labor beyond a person's strength, 
or labor too long continued — or in unhealthy or uncom- 
fortable places and circumstances, or without sufficient 
food," he. The Jews say, "service which is not de- 
termined, and service whereof there is no need." 

In short it would seem that the requirements of mas- 
ters, should be based on the precept, "Love thy neigh- 
bor as thyself." That they should require nothing of 
their servants but what, on a change of circumstances, 
they themselves would be willing to do. And this i- 
dea is confirmed by the injunction "remember that ye 
were once bondmen in Egypt. 

It therefore appears that we must view the children of 
Israel not only as a political body of men ; but also as a 
Christian community. The abuses of their political 
privileges were controled by their moral obligations ; — 
on the observance of which even their political existence 
depended. For whenever they should worship the i- 
dols of the heathen, the curse of God was upon them. — 
And notwithstanding the inhabitants of Canaan were to 
be driven out before them, — in order that they might pos- 
sess this country, yet the promise, and threat, were e- 
qually sure, that in the day they turned aside to serve 
other gods — to walk after the manner of the heathen, 
they were to be overcome by the Canaanites, in the 
same way, that these last were to be subdued by the Is- 
raelites had they been faithful. Deut. 28 : 1 to 14, also 
15 to 68. 

They were therefore cautious to walk in "a// the com- 
mandments and ordinances of the Lord" that this dire 
catastrophe might not overtake them. Hence the rea~ 



41 

ion why, in obedience to the command "Love thy neigh- 
bor as thyself," they dare not oppress or affiet the "?c?V/- 
ow" the "fatherless" or the sl.wk. 

The remarks in this section, and a few in other places 
bearing upon the same point, have been introduced more 
particularly, because many people, otherwise well mean- 
ing, have been led to believe that "oppression" even 
in Old Testament times, was sfn&ftytootits with sltitery) 
or, the simple loss of Liberty. And although it 
appears plain enough, that nothing among the children 
of Israel themselves, could be considered as an "oppres- 
sion" which their law allowed and though it be equally 
plain, that that law allowed of slavery : yet, perhaps, 
some may still be "slow of faith," because it was "op- 
pression which caused the Lord to deliver the children 
of Israel from Egypt." 

That the "oppression" was one moving cause of the 
escape of the Israelites from Egypt, is plain; yet it i- 
not equally certain that "slavery" is "oppression." It 
is one thing to prove that oppression was the procurinr: 
cause of the Exodus of the Israelites ; and quite anoth- 
er to prove that slavery did it. It is no argument a- 
gainst slavery here, to prove that this Egyptian oppres- 
sion grew out of it. For if slavery — the loss of liberty. 
is to be denounced as crime or sin, because evil? grow 
out of it. — or, because a bad use may be made of this 
liberty when in bad hands, we may denounce every fa- 
vor, or blessing of life nearly. For what blessing is 
there that is not abused ? If, on this ground, we were to 
denounce slavery, even our food and raiment would be 
on the proscribed list. 

But let us attend a little more closely to the circum- 
stances which the history of this transaction discloses. 

It is to be observed that the Israelites were slaves in 
Egypt four hundred years. And although, as the affos- 
tle tells us, they were in "bondage" and "evil entreated.' 
yet we find no particular complaint from them till some- 
time previous to their departure. Evetl so late as about 
foriy years before their exit ; their exceeding hard usage. 
— their lives being made hitter with hard bonda- 
4* 



42 

had not as yet weaned them from their attachment to 
Egypt. For when Moses, seeing two Hebrews strive 
together, "said to him that did the wrong, "Wherefore 
smitest thou thy fellow?" he replied "Who made thee 
a judge?" &c. "Intendest thou to kill me as thou didst 
the Egyptian ?" Evidently implying, let us alone, we are 
able to take care of ourselves when necessary. From 
all of which as well as from what is implied from the 
speech of the king, Ex. 1 : 10, it is evident, that, not- 
withstanding they were "evil entreated," they were not 
anxious to get rid of it. At least, we have no intima- 
tion that this was the case ; and there is no cause stated 
which would make us suppose that they were dissatisfied 
with their condition or wanted to escape from it. If they 
had been used as roughly as some would intimate, would 
not their own sense of right — their own love of ease from 
abuse, have stimulated them to have made their wrongs 
known then, as well as subsequently? Was not their 
feelings, as acute in the first stages of their slavery, as 
in its later periods ? Would not the "whip" or the "lash" 
produce as keen sensations upon their backs before the 
days of Moses as afterwards 1 Most certainly. If so, 
the simple loss of liberty was not considered by them as 
a very serious oppression. And I am inclined to think 
that the "bondage," and the being "entreated evil," 
spoken of in Acts, has a stronger reference to their re- 
ligious, than to their political or their social privileges. 
For Moses is uniformly told to say to Pharaoh, "Let 
my people go that they may serve me." Directly im- 
plying, they could not serve, or sacrifice to the Lord, in 
Egypt. This, as the Israelites were the chosen people, 
was a "bondage," and an "evil" to them. 

But let us look at their history just before their Exo- 
dus out of Egypt. 

We hear the king, — him who knew not Joseph — i.e. 
him who disproved "of that system of government which 
Joseph bad established, as well as his haughtily refus- 
ing to acknowledge the obligations under which the 
whole land of Egypt was laid to this eminent prime minis- 
ter of one of his predecessors,"— saying to his people, 



43 

"Behold the people of the children of Israel are inore 
and mighter than we : come on, let us deal wisely with 
them; lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, 
when there fallelh out any war, they join unto our ene- 
mies, and fight against us, and so get them up out of the 
land." Ex. 1: 9, 10. 

From this it appears that the king had two principle 
objects in view ; 1st to prevent their multiplying or in- 
creasing in numbers ; and 2d to guard against their join- 
ing his enemies in time of war. But in order to "kill two 
birds with the same stone," he thinks to accomplish both 
objects by "hard?* labor and vigorous servitude. And 
here just let us reflect a moment upon the labor he must 
think it necessary to require in order to accomplish his 
object. The Egyptians had labored too much them- 
selves to suppose that labor or servitude any wherewith- 
thin the circle of reason could accomplish the thing de- 
sired. How hard then must that be which should be 
the means of preventing their increase ! — either by thin- 
ning off those already in existence ; or by preventing 
conception and the birth of children ! ! How lost to all 
feeling of humanity must that heart be, who could ever 
devise such a method, much less put it into execution ! 
But so intent was he to accomplish this object by this 
means, that when Moses went to him to expostulate 
with him on keeping the Israelites in bondage, he prob- 
ably fearing the accomplishment of his object — the pre- 
vention of their revolt, — would not be effected ; com- 
manded that "the people be given no more straw to 
make brick as heretofore ; but let them go and gather 
straw for themselves." And "the same tale of brick 
were they required to make as before." Ex. 5 : 7, 8. 
Having become acquainted with the king's object, 
and the general principle on which he resolved, let us 
note the means he held in requisition to effect it. 

The means by which this extreme hard bondage was 
to be brought about was by task-masters. And the 
object of these task-masters was not to see that their 
slaves did good day's works, — to keep them diligent — 
and to furnish more work vhen necessary, but they were 



44 

set over them "to afifict them with thetr burdens. 1 ' On 
purpose to afflict them. To make their labor as hard as 
possible. To make their "burdens" oppressive, fatigu- 
ing and exhausting. And even after freedom was re- 
quested, these task masters were required to demand of 
them the usual tale of brick, while no straw was allow- 
ed them, and they even had to gather stubble instead of 
straw. Indeed, in doing this they were followed by 
these unrighteous task-masters with : "Fulfil your works, 
your daily tasks as when there was straw." Notwith- 
standing the impossibility of accomplishing these tasks, 
the officers of the children of Israel were beaten of these 
lordly task-masters, and demanded of them why "have 
ye not fulfilled your task in making brick both yesterday 
and to day as heretofore r" Under this severe oppres- 
sion, they cry unto Pharaoh, complaining of their hard 
usage, and praying for redress in the most affectionate 
terms. But what does the unfeeling monarch say to 
them ? " Ye are idle ! Ye are idle ! ! Go therefore 
now, and work ; for there shall no straw be given you, 
yet shall ye deliver the tale of bricks" 

And so severely pressed were they that they could 
not hearken unto Moses when he spake to them for an- 
guish of spirit. Ex.6: 9. Or as the margin has it, 
for shortness or straitness of spirit. The original words 
signify that their labor was so continual, and their bond- 
age so cruel and oppressive, that they had scarcely time 
to breathe. — Clarke. 

But notwithstanding, the more they afflicted them, the 
more they multiplied and grew, ch. 1 : 12. Conse- 
quently, finding that making "the children of Israel to 
serve with rigor ;" and even making their "lives bitter 
with hard bondage, in mortar, in brick, and in all man- 
ner of service in the field," did not produce the effect de- 
sired ; he next had recourse to the expedient of destroy- 
ing all the male children, first by commanding the mid- 
wives to do it ; and secondly, by throwing them into the 
river! ch. 1 : 16, 22. 

Truly may the Israelites in Egypt be said to have been 
oppressed ! First to be under such rigorous service as to 



45 



be out of breath by reason of it ; and then secondly to 
have all their male children destroyed!! And yet 
strange to tell, it is said there -are nearly three in. lions 
of American citizens svffering worse bondage in these 
United States, than that of the children of Israel in fc- 



1 I !»# 



But they were oppressed in a more impoilant Ugbt m 
another way. While in Egypt, the Israelites were pro- 
hibited from serving their God. "Let my son £ Aat 
he may serve ,ne.» Ex. 4 : 23. They could not sa - 
rifice in Egypt, because the animals to be sacrificed ueic 
sacred with the Egyptians. See ch. 8 : 26. 

They were indeed oppressed, not only in having to 
serve beyond their strength, ch. 6 : 9, but :we« .debar- 
red the privilege of sacrificing to their God. Dep lora 
ble indeed must be their condition. They had petition- 
ed Pharaoh for redress of grievances, ch. 5 : K> i©, 
but their prayer was treated with contempt by him ; ana 
having no where else to go, at last they cry unto the 
Lord. Hence it is said ; -And the children of Isiael 
whed by reason of the bondage, and they cried and 
their crv came up unto God by reason of the bondage, 
ch. 2:23. 

In this text two particulars are evident : 
1st. That they sighed,— or cried,— unto God. 
2d. The "bondage" was the cause of this cry. 
Now, inasmuch as the children of Israel had been in 
slavery 400 vears,-Gen. 15: 13,-and inasmuch as 
we have no evidence that this slavery ever id a single 
instance, was the cause of their crying to God ; it nec- 
essarily follows that this -bondage" could not ...ran 
simple slavery— or loss of liberty only, tor, il IU« 
causes produce like effects, the bondage spoken ot hen , 
could not be the bondage of simple loss ot liberty, as we 
have no evidence that that bondage eter wj the cause 
of a single prayer to Heaven ? \\ e shall thcivnv .- 
sume it as a fact that the bondage spoken of in itatttt 
has reference solely and entirely to the opj*e*iC* ot the 

'Testimony of God against slavery. 



46 

Israelites independent of the simple loss of liberty. But 
let us look again : 

"And God heard their groaning, and God remember- 
ed his covenant — Gen. 15: 14, — with Abraham, with 
Isaac and with Jacob. And God looked upon the chil- 
dren of Israel, and God had respect unto them." Ex. 
2: 24—25. 

What evidence does this passage afford to the idea 
that the Israelites were brought out of Egypt merely be- 
cause they were in bondage there ? The bondage — 
oppression — was the cause of their crying in sincerity 
and from the heart unto God. And these prayers 
were heard, not because they requested redress from af- 
fliction, but because they were from the heart. Hence 
it is said, "And God heard their groanings.* And what 
then? Why, "he remembered the covenant he made 
with Abraham," &c. Here then we have a solution of 
the difficulty, — it was not because they suffered; but 
because God had made a covenant with Abraham, and 
had renewed it to Isaac and to Jacob, that he would 
thus deliver them, that they were delivered. 

The following points then seem to be made out in re- 
lation to the exodus of the Israelites out of Egypt. 

1st. Their "cruel bondage" induced them to cry to 
God ; and he heard them, not because they had sim- 
ply lest their liberty, or even because of their gross op- 
pression ; but because their supplication was from the 
heart, and because God had previously promised thus to 
deliver them — Gen. 15: 14 — when they should cry un- 
to him. 

2d. There is no evidence to prove that the bondage 
here spoken of even includes the simple loss of liberty. 
— though it is evident enough that this bondage grew 
out of this loss. For this they had not enjoyed for 400 
years ; yet we hear nothing said of this "hard bondage" 
— ch. 1 : 14, — till after the accession to the throne of 
Egypt of that king "who knew not Joseph" — v. 8. 

3d. There is no evidence, — with which I am acquain- 
ted, — to prove that the Israelites were brought out of 
Egypt, because they suffered oppression merely ; or be- 



47 

cause they endured rigorous service, or hard bondage, — ■ 
severe as it was. But the evidence goes direct- 
ly to prove that the Lord brought them out in con- 
sequence of his Covenant. "God heard their groaning," 
and then "remembered his Covenant." Of course he 
acted accordingly. 

As a necessary inference from these particulars, we 
come to a 

4th. Which is, that slavery, — the simple loss of lib- 
erty, — had nothing to do with the final exit of the Is- 
raelites. For, notwithstanding the "hard bondage" 
<rrew out of this loss, yet it must be considered in the 
Fight of an abuse of that power which the possesison of 
the Israelites' liberty had given the Egyptian For 
no law can consistently authorise one individual to deal 
with another differently from that manner in which he 
himself would wish to be dealt by were he in the same 
circumstances with him. The Egyptians felt none of 
the obligations imposed by the Moral law of God. 

SECTION 9. 

Yet, after all, was not ancient slaveky used 

MERELY AS A PUNISHMENT FOR CRIME; AND BAD 
IT NOT OUGHT TO RE VIEWED IN THIS LIGHT AND IN 
NO OTHER ? 

That slavery was used as a punishment is evident. 
As an instance we may mention the case of the Gibeon- 
iteswho for deceiving Joshua and his people, they be- 
ing idolaters — were "made bondmen— hewers of wood 
and drawers of water for the congregation, and for the 
alter of the Lord, forever." Josh. 9: 23, 27, Slavery 
was also threatened the Hebrews; if they turned then 
feet from following the testimony of the Lord and serv- 
ed other gods, they should "be sold unto their enemies 
for bondmen and bondwomen." Deut 28 : 68, 

Other instances however occur in wh'hSb *e cannol 
suppose that slavery can be considered as pWishraenT. 
For instance, the cases of Hagar, of P/ilhah, of Zilpab, 
the other servants of Abram. Eliefcer of Damascus, fee. 
as well as those of the other patriarchs, baac and Jacob, 



48 

We cannot very well suppose that the slavery oi 
those servants was considered, by the ancients, in the 
light of punishments who were to have their liberty in 
consequence of the loss of an eye, or a tooth even, if 
that loss was occasioned by a blow from the master. — 
Ex. 21 : 26, 27. For when slavery is used as a pun- 
ishment, the criminal must endure it with all its attend- 
ant evils. Though the Hebrews, while walking in the 
commandments of God, could not, by the law of Moses, 
be slaves but six years at any one time, for which rea- 
son they were not called "bondmen ;" yet when they 
transgressed they were to be sold into slavery as bond- 
men — i. e. when it should exist for an indefinite period. 
And not only this difference was there between slavery 
as a punishment, and other legalized slavery, among the 
Hebrews ; but other attendant evils also must they suf- 
fer — for instance, be offered for sale, "and no man shall 
buy you." Dsut. 28 : 68. So wretched indeed was 
their condition to be, that they would even toish to be 
"bought slaves" among the heathen, but this privilege is 
denied them ! 

Inasmuch as slaves could not be made, legally, of any 
of the nations of the idolatrous Canaanites in consequence 
of the curse of extermination. Deut. 20 : 16 — pronoun- 
ced against them ; it is evident the law could recognize 
none of these as slaves — i. e. so long as they were idol- 
atrous. For idolatry being the "besetting sin" in those 
times, the children of Israel were to be guarded on eve- 
ry hand against being led away — either by mixing with 
idolatrous nations, or by suffering them to intermix with 
them. Hence the restrictions against intermarriages. — 
Deut. 7: 3— Josh. 23: 12, 13. They were to make 
no covenant with them, 'lest they be a snare m the midst 
of" them. Ex. 24: 32. They were utterly torbid 
dwelling even in their land, "lest they make thee to sin 
against me." Ex. 23 : 33. If a Hebrew was not to per- 
mit an idolatrous stranger ever to dwell in his land, is it 
probable he would make a slave of him while he re- 
mained an idolater against the express command of God ? 



49 

Deut. 20: 16. "They shall not dwell in thy land, 
lest they make thee to sin against me." Ex. 23 : 33. 

"Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant 
with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest 
it be a a snare" unto thee. Ex. 34 : 12. 

"Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of 
the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do 
sacrifice unto their gods," &-c. v. 15. 

'-'And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them be- 
fore thee ; thou shalt smite than, and utterly destroy 
'them, thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show 
mercy unto them." 

Deut. 7 : 2. See also Numb. 33: 52. — Jos!'. 
17,-8 : 24—9: 24—10: 28.40—11: 11, 12. Lev. 
27: 29. Numb. 25: 1—5,-31: 15—17. 

From these texts and many more which might be na- 
med, it is sufficiently evident that, whatever the chil- 
dren of Israel might do to the contrary, the law of Mo- 
ses, being dictated by the spirit of God, could make no 
provision for slaves from any of these nations. For as 
these were idolators. that law declared they should lie 
"utterly destroyed" — not be made slaves. We can find 
no passage in all the Mosaic law to the contrary of this. 
There is no provision by that law for even the reception 
of tribute oiany of the seven anathamatized Canaanitish 
nations: much less for the making of them domestic 
slaves. 

It is true indeed, that other nations against whom the 
Israelites might fight were to be treated somewhat dif- 
ferently. When the Israelites went against a city of 
these nations, they first "proclaimed peace unto it." — 
"And it shall be. if it make thee answer of peace, and 
open unto thee, then it shall be that all the people found 
therein shall be tributaries unto thee and they shall 
thee," — not as domestic slaves, but as a nation or a city 
paying tribute to another nation. Dent. 20 : 1 1 . — I>u;. 
If it do not make peace with thee, but will make war 
against thee, then thou shalt besiege it : and when thp 
Lord thy God hath delivered it into thy hands, thou 
shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the 
5 



50 

sword." But the women and little ones are to be ex- 
empt. These "shalt thou take to thyself." Deut. 20 : 
13, 14. But after such a campaign, they were to abide 
without the camp seven days. And "whosoever 
hath killed any person, and whosoever hath touched 
any slain, purify both yourselves and your captives on 
the third day." Numb. 31 : 19. Yet notwithstand- 
ing this exemption of females, if they had been a cause 
of turning away the hearts of the children of Israel from 
serving the true God, they too were to be slain. See 
Numb. 31: 15, 16. 

From these texts the following; deductions seem to be 
i • • • 

legitimate ; viz. 

1st. No idolatrous nation on being captured, was to 
be saved alive, if persisting in their idolatrous course. 

2d. A nation formerly idolatrous could retain their 
integrity as a nation, on certain conditions ; — viz. making 
peace with the Israelites on their own terms and paying 
them tribute ; provided, they did not consist of a Ca- 
naanitish nation. 

3d. Those "saved alive" lor slaves must be "purified" 
on "the third day" in the same manner with the Israel- 
ites themselves. 

4th. No Oanaanite could be thus saved. 

5th. Every idolator on becoming a slave, must re- 
nounce his idolatrous course, and conform to the Jewish 
rites. Even if he is not a slave he must renounce idol- 
atry in order to retain a living among them. 

The punishment due idolatry as these evidences plain- 
ly show, was not slavery, — but, Death ! Hence when 
the children of Israel had "committed whoredom with 
the daughters of Moab ;" — when they had "sacrificed to 
their gods," and had "bowed down" to them ; and 
"when Israel had joined himself unto Baal-peor," "the 
anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel," and he 
thus addressed Moses : "Take all the heads of the peo- 
ple and hang them up before the Lord against the sun, 
that the fierce answer of the Lord may be turned away 
from Israel." Therefore Moses gave the command 
"Slay ye every one his men that were joined unto Baal- 






51 

peor." Numb. 25 : 1—5, see also. Ex. 32 : 24, 27. 
Deut. 13: 6, 9, 13, 15. 

From all of which it appears plain that sla\er\ 
could not be considered as a punishment for idolatry. — 
Neither can it be admitted that former idolatry, though 
not practised then, could be thus punished ; for, to be 
just, all such ought to be thus punished. Whereas wt 
know that hired servants and sojourners were not, as a gen- 
eral thing slaves, and of course, were not punished. But 
farther such an idea is against the express word of holy 
writ. "All his transgressions that he hath committed, 
they shall not be mentioned unto him : in his righteous- 
ness he hath done he shall live." Ezek. 18: 3£, 

We think the above remarks are sufficient to show that 
all slavery could not be considered in the light of pun- 
ishment for crime. But if any farther evidence should 
be wished, we would refer them to texts already quoted- 
in some of the preceding remarks found in the twenty- 
first chapter of Exodus, and Deut. 15 : 12 to 13. 

Inasmuch as those strangers who sojourned among the 
Israelites had renounced idolatry, we freely own, we can- 
not see for what crime theirchildren, — born even among 
the Israelites themselves, and in all probability accus- 
tomed to their rites, from their infancy, — should be 
doomed to perpetual and everlasting slavery, if slavery 
is a punishment ! — See the 40th and 45th v. of the 25th 
chap, of Leviticus. 

SECTION 10. 

Is THE POSSESSION OF THE LIBERTIES OF ONE MAN B] 
ANOTHER NECESSARILY SIN ? 

On this question there are different opinions. Some 
suppose it is sin, while others, equally sincere and 
well-meaning, believe otherwise. For ourselves \\< of- 
fer no opinion further than we think the \Vord of God 
obviously intimates. If others, after era impartial, un- 
prejudiced, candid and thorough examination of a 1 1 the 
laws of God on this point, come, rationally and by logical 
deduction to the conclusion that simple loss of liberty is 
tiff, we would be the last to shackle his conscience with. 



52 

restraints or opinions of our own ; provided, he himself 
walked in consonance with the Christian character. 

If, on the examination of the law of Moses, it be found 
that slavery was tolerated by that law ; it will necessa- 
rily follow that slavery was no sin in relation to that law. 
And that slavery was thus tolerated, w T e think has been 
sufficiently proved by the texts and arguments adduced 
in the preceding pages. Now if that law does inculcate 
the principle of slavery, we infer, that in relation to thai 
law, that principle is no sin for the following reasons : viz. 

1st. Nothing can be sin which is according to the 
law. For this reason is it, that oppression is not the le- 
gal result of slavery, neither can slavery be sin. 

2d. Because scripture evidence is in favor of this 
view. For, "whosoever committeth sin transgresseth 
the law ; for sin is the transgression of the law.' 5 1. John 
3 : 4. To the same point St. Paul. 

"Because the law worketh wrath ; for where no law 
is, there is no transgression." Rom. 4 : 15. 

The only point farther to prove is, whether slavery is 
sin under the gospel dispensation. But as that question 
is intimately connected with its existence under that dis- 
pensation, we defer saying any thing farther on it till that 
question is noticed. 

SECTION IK 

Is SLAVERY CONSISTENT WITH THE GOSPEL. DISPENSA- 
TION ? I. E. CAN IT EXIST, WITHOUT SIN, UNDER IT ? 

This question is founded on the objection urged by 
some, that notwithstanding slavery might, or did exise 
among the ancient Israelites, yet it cannot in these days 
of the Gospel Dispensation, without its incurring the 
guilt of sin. 

Being reminded of the position laid down in the last 
Section, that nothing is sin w T hich is in accordance with 
the law ; the fate of that question will be determined 
by that of the question now under consideration — viz. 
the existence properly of slavery under the Gospel. 

In order to come to 2. just, and to an impartial deci- 
sion of the question at issue, it is proper to be divested 



53 

of any pledged ism, or theory to which we may feel 
obligations of support, and then "with a single eye." to 
turn to the "law and to the testimony." 

It is to be feared that some, from an over heated zeal 
for the poor slaves, who are but in too many instances, 
"vexed" and "oppressed ;" and from a desire to accom- 
plish too much at once, have laid hold of what they art 
pleased to call a principle, '"'that slavery" of every grade, 
form and color, "is sin." 

We do not wish to have any remarks which we ma) 
make on this subject so construed in the mind of any 
one as to lead him to believe that we are in favor of sla- 
very. Far be such a thought from us. Could slavery 
be consistently abolished to-day, it would rejoice our 
heart, and would be a time of ever grateful remembrance 
with every philanthropist. But all we contend for i«. 
that people should "look before they leap." For let an 
individual of a warm, zealous temperament, — of sanguine 
feelings and warm hearted ;— disposed naturally to view 
things superficially, — feeling a strong attachment to Re- 
ligion, and an utter aversion to sin in all its shapes. — I 
say, let such an individual get the idea fixed in his mind 
that all slavery is sin, — sin against his God : and he will 
be willing to go almost any length however indiscreet, 
though well meant, to do away a crime so heinous. And 
such an one will be headstrong and furious, and beyond 
the reach ol argument to convince. 

It does not follow that slavery must exist if it is not 
sin ; for almost all admit it as an evil greatly to be de- 
plored. And measures have been making for its aboli- 
tion ; and as the public mind becomes prepared, other, 
and more efficient ones will be devised. We therefore 
proceed to the question at the head of this section. 

If slavery could be justified under the Abrahamic 
Covenant, or Mosaic dispensation, it can be justified 
equally under that of the gospel. And this position we 
shall endeavor to sustain on the following ground, Ha, 

The moral law by which man is held responsible t$ 
his God was as binding on the ISRAILITEI as on II 
and vice versa. 
5* 



54 

The Covenant made with Abram was as much a Gov- 
enant of grace as the dispensation under Christ. By 
this, we do not wish to be understood to mean, that they 
were both alike. By examining that Covenant atten- 
tively we shall find, that, in addition to its temporal ad- 
vantages, the following blessings are promised : 

1st. God would bless Abram and make him the father 
of many nations. This blessing and promise, according 
to St. Paul, has greater reference to a spiritual seed than 
to a natural. 'And the scripture, foreseeing, that God 
would justify the heathen through faith, preached before 
the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all na- 
tions be blessed.' Gal. 3 : 8. 

•2nd. The gift of the land of Canaan to Abraham and 
his seed. This also was but a type of a better inheri- 
tance. For St. Paul tells us he sojourned in a land of 
promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles 
with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same 
promise: for they looked for a city which hath founda- 
tions, whose builder and maker is God. Heb. 11 : 9,10. 

3d. God promised to be his God, and a God to his seed 
after him. A promise with which is connected the high- 
est spiritual blessings. 

4th. In Abiaham's "seed all nations of the earth shall 
be blessed." That is, all those nations and people who 
exercised faith in Christ. Compare Gen. 17: 1 — 10, 
with Gal. chap. 3. 

By the Apostle, faith is made the means in conse- 
quence of which God made his covenant with Abraham, 
and that even his temporal blessings were types of spir- 
itual ones. Hsnce "know ye that those which are of 
faith, the same are the children of Abraham" even 
though they be heathen, or Gentiles. All who have 
faith in the promise of God, are, through Christ, blessed 
with faithful Abraham. 

Here then we have the ground-work, so to speak, of 
salvation by faith. And as this covenant was to extend 
not to Abraham only, but to his seed after him, there 
could be no law introduced to do it away, which would 
pot fulfil the blessing promised. If therefore this cove* 



55 

nant was thus binding, what was the need of a law ? — 
Or as the Apostle has it, "if the inheritance be of the 
law, it is no more of promise, — wherefore serveth the 
law ?" "It was added because of transgressions, till the 
seed should come to whom the promise was made." — 
"Which seed" was "Christ." 

Here we discover the grounds on which the law was 
given to Moses by God on Mount Sinai. The seed of 
Abraham not exercising that "faith" in the promises of 
God which they ought, not relying on the mercy and 
power of God, they disbelieved that they should ever 
inherit even the temporal Canaan. Wherefore they 
complained of Moses for leading them from Egypt say- 
ing, "were there no graves in Egypt that thou hast ta- 
ken us away to die in the wilderness ?" Ex.14: 11,12. 
And so strong was their propensity to err and go astray, 
that even while Moses was in the Mount receiving a 
law for them, that they even committed idolatry by 
worshiping a molten calf. Ex. 32: 24 — 27. There- 
fore the Apostle says, "the law was added because ol 
transgression." As much as to say, "if the seed of A- 
braham, the children of Israel, were left to proceed on 
their way merely through the strength of their "faith" 
in the promises of God, they never would reach the 
promised Canaan." For every man would follow the 
impulse of his own imagination, so that, instead of ad- 
vancing forward, they would be continually retrograding. 
The propriety of a law therefore becomes apparent. — 
For notwithstanding the law could confer no blessings of 
itself, yet it would oblige those under its influence to walk- 
in that way which would unerringly lead lo them. For 
this reason was it, that St. Paul considered the "law as a 
schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ." Gal. 3 : 24* 

We now see the connexion there is between the A- 
brahamic covenant and the Law, — the one being the 
basis of all temporal and spiritual blessings, the other 
an assistant or director pointing the way to those bles- 
sings, and urging the delinquent, and the "slow of 
faith" by penalties. While the law holds out no bles- 
sings of its own, it secures the blessings of the covenant 



56 

to all those who walk according to its requirements, in 
virtue of the promise. 

It is a mistake to suppose the gospel was never pro- 
mulgated till after the introduction of our Saviour into 
the world. For St. Paul tells us that the "Gospel was 
preached before to Abraham," in that it was said "In 
thee," — i. e. in thy seed, — "shall all nations be bles- 
sed." It was evidently impossible that all nations could 
be blessed in Abraham personally, for he must soon go 
the way of all the earth ; consequently, it must be in his 
seed. Now this seed w r as Christ. For Christ came 
through the stock of Abraham. 

As all the nations of the earth were to be blessed in 
this seed of Abraham, — the promised Messiah, — the 
Christ, — who had not yet come, — it is plain all these 
blessings depended on faith in the "promise" of this 
"Seed." And circumcision was the sign or seal of the 
covenant on which this faith was predicated. So that 
although the Saviour had not as yet made his appear- 
ance in the world ; yet all who had become a party in 
the Abrahamic Covenant by circumcision were bound 
by a strong moral obligation to hold this faith in lively 
exercise. For this was the condition on which the 
blessing was predicated. And if ye continue "by faith 
in Jesus Christ," then "are ye all the children of God." 
"And if ye be Christ's then are ye Abraham's seed and 
heirs according to the promise." Gal. 3 : 29. 

The moral obligations under which those were pla- 
ced who received the seal of the covenant by circum- 
cision, to conform to the requirements of that covenant, 
were more clearly made known, and shown in their va- 
rious bearings between individuals of the same covenant 
as well as their duty toward God in the moral law given 
by God to Moses on Mount Sinai. The first four com- 
mands there given, show us our duty to God; — the six 
last, our duty to our fellow creatures. The sum ofwhich 
is "Love, the Lord thy God with all thy heart, soul , 
mind, might, and strength, and thy neighbor as thyself." 
On these two hang all the law and the prophets. Mat, 
23 : 37 to 40. 



57 

The giving of the law then to Moses was not, in 
strict fact a new covenant, but rather a re-enactment of 
an old one, — the Abrahamic. For it is to be remem- 
bered, that up to this time, the children of Israel had 
come out of Egypt, — and had progressed thus far, on 
the strength of the covenant, or promise made with A- 
braham 430 years before. Aside from all other evidence 
ce therefore, it would be obviously absurd now, before 
the objects are accomplished on which they were en- 
gaged in virtue of that promise, to have that covenant 
disannulled on which that promise was founded, and 
the substitution of another, founded on different princi- 
ples. There could be no harmony in this : — it would 
be unworthy of an All Wise God. 

The principles therefore embraced in this law to the 
children of Israel on Mount Sinai, were the same as 
those embraced in the Abrahamic Covenant, though not 
there so obviously enumerated. 

The same moral principles run through, the whole 
of the N~CW Testament dispensation; but frequently 
more enlarged upon than even in the Mosaic Code. 

There aopears to be no just foundation, we think, to 
the idea entertained by some that this law — the moral 
law — was done away by Christ. But so much to tee 
contrary appears to be the fact, that every principle in- 
volved in that law is either directly taught or obviously 
implied by Christ and his Apostles. Therefore says 
Christ, "I am not come to destroy the law but to fulfil. " 
Math. 5 : 17. 

But some may suppose that because it is said, "Christ 
is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that 
believeth," that Christ did away the whole Mosaic dis- 
pensation. Rom. 10 : 4. 

The truth is, the Mosaic code of laws taken together, 
are composed of three parts ; — each of which have re- 
ceived distinct appellations, according to the object they 
were destined to effect. And each of these three parts 
are often spoken of as laws of themselves. We there- 
fore have the political, the moral, and the ccrmwuial 
laws. Properly speaking, Christ could be the end of none 



58 

but the ceremonial, or as it is sometimes called, the ritu- 
al law. For as none could be saved in their sins — and 
as there could be no remission of these without the shed- 
ding of blood, and as Christ had not as yet offered up 
himself, although he had promised to do this at a future 
day ; — the Israelites were obliged from necessity to insti- 
tute sacrifices, oblations, and to have recourse to rites and 
ceremonies in order to be saved. And the rules and regu- 
lations which governed these, were called the ceremonial 
or ritural law. But when Christ came who was the ob- 
ject typified by these usages, there could, of course, be 
no need of them any longer. 

The political law was that code which was in- 
stituted for the regulation of the Israelites as a nation. — 
It was adapted to their situation and the circumstances of 
their case. But as spiritual blessings was the great object 
of the covenant which was the basis of the moral law ; 
it is obvious they could have no political regulation which 
would be inconsistent with the acquirement and posses- 
sion of these blessings. Their political and their moral 
code must therefore go "hand in hand" together. Con- 
sequently, the principles of that political code, must 
forever remain the principles of all political law among 
all nations, where the moral law holds. To be sure ? 
those principles may be extended, receive new illustra- 
tions, and acquire more extensive applications ; but yet ? 
the principles themselves must remain unchanged, for 
they are in their nature unchangeable. If in law, a 
principle should be instituted, in opposition to a principle 
of the Mosaic code, that new principle must be in opposi- 
tion to the principles of the moral law, consequently not 
in accordance with the spirit of Christianity. On this 
point we wish to be understood. We do not contend 
that the political code of the Israelites, as it is, is to be> 
or ought to be, the law of every nation. Nations and 
people now may be situated very differently from what 
the Israelites were when this law was given them ; con- 
sequently, their law, as a body, is not applicable to the 
case of modern nations. But we do contend that the 
moral law is as binding on us at the present day as it 



59 

was on Abraham, or on his seed, the children of Israel, 
in the days of Moses. And that the principles of the 
Mosaic political law, not the law itself, — but the prin- 
ciples on which that law was founded, must be the 
principles of all political law among all nations where 
the moral law holds. If, therefore, a nation can be 
found which is properly exempt from the obligations of 
the moral law ; then that nation can institute laws foun- 
ded on principles the very opposite of the Mosaic insti- 
tution. For if a man can be so situated as to be under 
no moral obligation, either to his God or to his fellow 
creatures, he is in a pitiable situation. And it matters 
not much, what kind of laws are made for him ; wheth- 
er they be just or unjust, wise or unwise. 

Our position is therefore sustained. Christ came "not 
to destroy, but to fulfill" the moral "law," given by Mo- 
ses, but which had the Abrahamic Covenant for its prin- 
ciples and base ; — He "was the end of the" ceremonial 
or ritual "law" "for righteousness to every one that be- 
lieveth ;" — and their political law was a rule by which to 
regulate their national and other concerns ot a purely 
temporal character; the principles of which must be in 
strict harmony with those of the moral law, as they both 
had the same ultimate object in view. 

To recapitulate the scope of our argument then, wc 
would say, that the plan or design of a gospel system 
was first intimated to man, after he had broken the first 
covenant, or the covenant of works, whose provisions 
were "Do this and live," by the promise of a Saviour ; 
"the seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent's head." 
Gen. 3: 15. This intimation of the gospel, or rather 
this dev elopement of it, was confirmed unto Abraham. 
And this confirmation, is called the Abrahamic Cove- 
nant, or the Covenant of Grace. The principles of 
which St. Paul expressly calls the GotrftL. See Gal. 
3: 8. The Gospel therefore was preached as well f>- - 
fore Christ came in the (lesh, as afterwards. And those 
who suppose there was no gospel until the Incarnation, 
are most grievously mistaken ! 

These principles of the gospel embraced in the cove- 



60 

nant with Abraham, received new illustrations, and were 
more fully developed in the covenant, as it is called, or 
the law given by God to Moses, on Mount Sinai on the 
two tables of stone. The purport of which is, accord- 
ing to Christ himself, "to love the Lord thy God with 
all thy soul, mind, might and strength ; and to love thy 
neighbor as thyself." The same sentiment is also incul- 
cated in other parts of the Old Testament. It is there- 
fore said, "Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart." 
Deut. 11: 13, "and thy neighbor as thyself." Lev. 
19: 18. So also the sentiment contained in the follow- 
ing quotation : "All things whatsoever ye would that 
men should do to you, do ye even so to them, for this 
is the law and the prophets." Matt. 7 : 12, is also found 
in the Mosaic law. See also Lev. 19: 11 to 18, and 
32 to 36, and many other places. 

But all its beauties and glories were not displayed un- 
til Christ himself came, to do "away the types and shad- 
ows prefigured in the law" by offering up himself "a sa- 
crifice once for all" for the sins of the people. 

Viewing the subject in this light, the same principles 
of the Gospel are seen to run through the whole system 
from Abraham to the dispensation of Christ. Faith in 
Christ, the promised seed, was the condition of salvation 
both under the law and under Christ. And this faith 
was aceepted in consequence of the merits of the Saviour , 
not in consequence of its own worth. Christ was to 
die — offer up himself a sacrifice — to appease justice in 
the sinner's behalf — in order to reconcile him to the 
Father. This death, this sacrifice, was meritorious, and 
was the medium through which mankind, in every age 
of the world, have been saved. Before this sacrifice 
was offered, it was typified under the law by the sacrifi- 
ces and oblations of animals. And the law which regu- 
lated these sacrifices, and the ceremonies of the temple 
worship was called the ceremonial law, which law was 
of course done away when Christ, the true sacrifice, 
came into the world and offered himself up. Here then 
is the difference between the Mosaic and the Christian 
Dispensations. The one worshipped God through types 



61 

and shadows ; the other without the intervention of these 
veils. See 2d Corinthians chapter 3. 

We think then we have made it sufficiently plain that 
the Moral Law as it is called, is an essential feature in 
the gospel economy ; and that man has been obliged to 
observe this law on pain of forfeiting its proffered bless- 
ings ; not that this law has blessings of its owd, but by 
following its requirements, the blessings connected with 
the gospel will be conferred in virtue of the promise. — 
For the willing and the obedient shall eat the good of 
the land. Isa. 1:19. As the principles of the gospel 
extended through the whole Mosaic dispensation up to 
Abraham, it is equally evident that if the moral law was 
essential to one part, it was to the whole of it. Conse- 
quently the principles of the moral law, and those of the 
gospel must run parallel ; if either be taken away, the 
other is imperfect. Take away the law, and we have 
no directory to the blessings ; take away the gospel and 
there is nothing to be obtained by following that directo- 
ry, or schoolmaster as Paul has it. 

It was without doubt, a political regulation that patroni- 
zed slavery under the Mosaic dispensation. But as the 
Moral law was also binding at the same time, no political 
regulation could be introduced to disannul or make void 
any precept of it. For as both laws were dictated by God, 
we necessarily suppose that no principle of the one, can 
contradict a principle of the other. It therefore follows 
that under that dispensation slavery could not be sin. For 
if it was sin, then that principle which tolerated it must 
contradict the moral law, consequently making one part of 
the Lord's commands at variance with another part ; as 
both these laws were dictated to him. The same remarks 
will apply to the holding of slaves by Abraham, with this 
difference, that there was no formal enactment of a politi- 
cal law in his case, as it was then unnecessary. 

But again ; As the same same moral law extends into 
the Christian dispensation, it must follow, that any princi- 
ple which could tolerate slavery consistently with this mor- 
al law under one dispensation, may under another dispen- 
sation, if no principle of that Moral law has been altcr- 
6 



62 

<ed. But we have no evidence that any alteration of 
this kind has ever taken place in this law under the 
Christian dispensation ; consequently, slavery is as com- 
patible with the gospel under the Christian dispensa- 
tion, as with the gospel under the Mosaic dispensation. 

This exposition of the principles of the gospel we 
shall hold as correct until it is satisfactorily proved to be 
false. And this, w r e think, cannot be done as it respects 
"principles." For it is with principles we seem to have 
to do. No one will suppose that any have been saved, 
since the fall, but on the principles of the gospel ; and 
no one can suppose there can be a gospel without a pro- 
vision of moral principles, which owe their existence to 
the moral requirements of God. Consequently if sla- 
very existed harmlessly anciently, it can exist equally 
inoffensively now. 

That the view of the subject which we have now 
given is correct we infer, 

1st. From the fact, that neither Christ, nor his Apos- 
tles have ever contradicted it. 

They have never, in a single instance, flatly, or oth- 
erwise, denounced slavery as sin,0Y as inconsistent with 
the Christian religion. The Apostle Paul speaks of 
the subject, in a very different style from many of the 
present day. He says to the slave, "if thou mayest 
be made free, use it rather;" but if thou canst not be 
made thus free, "care not for it ;" 1 Cor. 7 : 21. For 
cc in Christ there is neither bond nor free ;" i. e. the 
privileges and enjoyments of the one, in Christ, are as 
great as the other. His blood is free ; no outward cir- 
cumstances can prevent its application to that soul 
which truly seeks after it. 

But we may be told, that all those texts which speak 
against oppression ; which required us to love our neigh- 
bor as ourselves — and all such as request us to do to 
others as we would wish them to do unto us, are against 
slavery. Now this position we must take the liberty to 
deny, in toto, until a law is produced; or an express 
command named, where the simple loss of liberty is 
denounced as sin, or as oppression. Of course, we shall 



6a 

except all those cases of Hebrew slaves that were retain- 
ed in servitude for a longer term of time than six years. 
It is no argument here, to produce, instead of argument, 
as is too much the fashion in these days, some thirty 
or forty metaphysical questi ons designed to mislead the 
ignorant. And thereby ungenerously requiring others 
to prove that which belongs to themselves. Let the 
points therefore be honestly tested ; and not subtly palm- 
ed off by vain and metaphysical sophisms. 

But in the mean time just permit us to say, we did 
think that man was placed in this world to serve God 
and prepare for the next ; not merely to acquire proper- 
ty or to gain wealth. And that the object of all men 
was, to acquire a daily livelihood, not to hoard up treas- 
ures for others to quarrel about. And that no man was 
properly justified in going farther than this. Because 
his time ought to be devoted to his soul's interest, not to 
that of filthy lucre. If these principles are correct, and 
we think no Christian will be prepared to dispute them, 
we would humbly ask, where is the harm, in one man's 
having the liberties of another, so long as he provides 
sufficiently for him ? In truth, the master himself can 
enjoy nothing more than what is necessary for his food 
and raiment. And all this the slave may have. And 
that too without the trouble and anxiety of getting it. — 
Is it objected that his living is not so nice as that of hLs 
master's ? Strange philanthropy ! What ! would you 
reduce that robust frame, that vigorous arm, that pier- 
cing eye, that smiling visage and active mien, to the 
wan, emaciated and dejected wretch, whose frame is 
raeked with pains; whose arm is tremulous; whose eye 
is dim; whose countenance is palid and sunk, and Whose 
gait is tottering with premature old age ; whose mind is 
imbecile and whose offspring is puny; we say, if you 
would produce all these evils — or blessings probably, as 
some would call them, if the slave could but be free ; — 
then let him set at the table with his master. Denounce 
before him the use of simple fare ; tell him 'tis beneath 
the dignity of man thus to live ; pamper his appetite 
with the dainties of the opulent and wealthy: !■ 



64 

within him a disrelish for the simplicity of former habits, 
and your work is done ! Done, irrecoverably done ! ! 
Well would it be for the master did many of his dain- 
ties give more place to the simple fare of his servants. 

It is said by some that the slave is not permitted even 
to use the means of grace. If so, it is to be lamented ; 
and we feel extremely sorry, and highly deprecate the 
condition of such. But be that as it may, it is no objec- 
tion to the position we have advocated. Scripture evi- 
dence seems to say to us, that simple loss of liberty by a 
political law, whose principles correspond with that giv- 
en by God to Moses, and which is restrained by the 
Moral law emanating from the same source, is no sin. 
This position we think is sufficiently substantiated by 
the two arguments already adduced ; yet to make it still 
clearer in the minds of some, we proceed and say, 

2d. That its existence is obviously implied by Christ 
and his apostles as existing in his day, both in the church 
and out of it. 

That it existed out of the church, and among the peo- 
ple in the days of Christ, may be satisfactorily proved 
from history ; but the New Testament itself, furnishes 
evidence enough to the point in the various parables put 
forth by our Saviour when he compared the kingdom of 
heaven to a man having servants, he. 

But secondly it is proved by specific texts and passa- 
ges. The parable put forth by our Lord in Matthew 
twenty-fifth, from the 14th to the 30th verses inclusive, 
appears' in point. 

This parable proves in the^rs^ place two things, viz : 
1st. That slavery existed in his day and was familiar 
with the people to whom the parable was addreased. 
2d. That the relation existing between the master and 
slave was not a sin ; for, the kingdom of heaven was 
compared to it. And this comparison of the kingdom of 
heaven to this relation is a very strong proof, that the 
servants spoken of were slaves ; in no other viev T can the 
comparison hold. For let me ask, what does a man 
possess that does not belong to his heavenly Father? Is 
not man the property, so to speak, of his Creator ? Is 



he not in his power? Can he not *<// him. i. < 
relinquish him to his own destruction, or deliver him 
into the hands of his enemies for idolatry — when he 
pleases ? And to ichom he pleases ? Can he possess any 
thing of his oicn ? Is not the whole of his time and laboi 
his master's? Most certainly. , And the very moment 
you suppose a servant can possess any thing whatever 
of his own, the comparison is destroyed. From this 
fact therefore, as well as from the parable itself, the fol- 
lowing points are substantiated, viz: 

1st. They w r ere the man's own servants, v. 14th. 
2d. They had nothing ot their own. 
3d. All their time and labor properly belonged to the 
master. Therefore he, who worked not for his Lord, 
was punished, v. 30. 

4th. It was their duty thus to labor for their master. 
v. 27. 

5th. They labored not for ivagcs. This would ha\< 
carried the idea of merit in their services. 

6th. And yet, after all, the master did unto them, as 
it would be just for him to have been dealt by, was he 
in their situation. He gave the obedient presi /if- ; but 
punished the disobedient. Consequently, 

7th. The relation which here existed is just such an 
one as we have contended for, viz: — Political slavery 
controhd by moral law. The same remarks apply to 
Luke 19: J 2— 26. 

[n accordance with the same views are the sentiment- 
of Paul to Timothy. Hear him: — "Let as many ser- 
vants as are under the yoke count their own ra 
worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doc- 
trine be not blasphemed." 

"And they that have believing masters, let them not 
despise them," that is, believing masters not to dt spin 
their slaves — u bccause they are brethren" i. e. in Christ : 
"but rather do them service, because they are faithful 
and beloved, partakers of the benefit," viz. of their ser- 
vices. These things teach and t vhort. 

"If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholt* 
some words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ) 
6* 



66 

and to the doctrine which is according to godliness, he 
is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions 
and strife of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, 
evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt 
minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is 
godliness : from such withdraw thyself. But godliness 
with contentment is great gain. For we brought noth- 
ing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing 
out. And having food and raiment let us be therewith 
content." 1 Tim. 6 : 1 to 8. 

From this quotation, the following inferences natural- 
ly present themselves, viz. 

1st. These servants were slaves, being "under the 
voke," and having '-masters" over them. 

•2d. That some of these masters were Christians — 
-believers.'" 

3d. These masters and their slaves were "brethren," 
not according to the flesh ; but in Christ. 

4th. They were enjoined to '-honor" the master ; 
and the master not to "despise" them. 

5th. These slaves labored not for wages. '-'Having 
food and raiment let us therewith be content." Parta- 
kers of the benefit." 

6th. This relation, and "these things," Timothy 
was to "exhort and teach." And that for the following 
reasons, viz. : 

1st. That the name of God and his doctrine be not 
blasphemed." For, as we have above shown, Christ 
taught that the kingdom of heaven was as a man having 
slaves under him. See Matt. 25 : 14 to 30. As this 
man's slaves belonged to him, so all men belonged to 
the Father, who had an equal right to them, their la- 
bor, their time, and their all, as the man in the parable 
had to his slaves — so here ; if Paul had taught Timothy 
to have preached insubordination of slaves, or had he 
denounced the relation existing between master and 
slav r e, he would virtually have anathamatised the doc- 
trine of Christ. But, 

•2d. "If any man teach otherwise," he "consents not 
\o wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus, 



67 

Christ;''' but is proud, knowing nothing, doatin* about 
questions and srrife of words, envy, railings, evil sunni- 
sinss.'' k.c. 

We might multiply texts to the same import, but th& 
above we think are sufficient. 

In conclusion of this and of the preceding section, we 
would say, we do not believe that the simple hold- 
ing of one man's liberties by another, in the sense 
we have defined, is --sin." Did we think otherwise, 
we would be the last — the very last, to speak in its fa- 
vor. The scripture testimony of God, and the very na- 
ture of things, forbid such a belief. Did we lav down a 
principle, unwise should we be, did we not follow it. — 
And should we assert, that -'loss of libertv is sin, as a 
principle, where should we stop! Does the principle 
stop, when we have emancipated all the slaves ? ?>o ! 
Does it stop when we have forever anathamatised a 
man's right to his hired servants, dav-laborers and do- 
mestics': No! Does it stop, when we have disannulled 
all penal law. thrown open the prison doors, and de- 
nounced sin upon the ministers of justice ; Ao ! Does 
it stop when we have torn children from the embrace of 
parents, to prevent their committing sim perhaps all their 
days : Xo ! Where then does it stop ? It stops not. till 
anarchy is established throughout the world ! It stops 
not, till every man shall do as At pleases! — till families 
are separated, and till there is no punishment for crime ! 



CHAPTEH II. 
Brief Review of Rev. L. R. Sunderland's Book, 

ENTITLED, "TESTIMONY OF GoD AGAINST SLAVERY." 

SECTION I. 

Strictures on Mr. Sunderland's view of Sla- 
very. 

The importance of having our views on all objects of 
research defined, has ever been felt and acknowledged 
by all who have paid any attention to investigation. For 
whenever investigators have arrived to that point where 
they could gain a knowledge of a defined "outline," the ■ 
difficulty of the undertaking is, in a great measure o- 
vercome. And the task of thus "defining," is some- 
times extremely difficult. It is no less than the draw- 
ing a division line between what is essential ; and what 
is collateral, extraneous, or coincident. It is the divest- 
ing of a subject of every thing which is not a "constitu- 
ent" of it; and it is the retaining of every thing which 
is "essential" to it. 

In defining slavery, therefore, none of those evils or 
circumstances which are results, and which are produ- 
ced by the operation of the slave system,* should ever 
find their way into a definition of that system. Should 
they enter into it, confusion is produced, — the effect 
producing the cause ; and the cause the effect. 

Let our ideas be definite of the system itself, and we 
shall be in a better situation to judge of its merits or de- 
merits. We apprehend this mixing of cause and "ef- 
fects" together, has been the cause of much warmth 
between partisans of the slavery question, which might 

*By any operation of it, whether lawful or unlawful. 



69 

otherwise not have been known. For a system is not 
necessarily, answerable for all its bad results, or for all 
the evils which originate from it, when in bad hands. — 
If so, every system ought to be denounced, whether 
good or bad. A distinction ought always to be made 
between a "system" which is, in itself sinful, and .sinful 
"effects." 

Our author happens to be among those who have not 
kept this distinction good. If we understand him he 
jumbles both "cause" and "effects" together ; and then, 
gravely tells us, of some "evils" which are, according 
to him results, which can be made to be nothing more 
nor less than causes of the whole ! Let us hear him : 
"We observe, then, that by slavery, in this country, is 
meant the possession and holding of the human specks 
as property, — the using them not as human beings, but 
as things and beasts, exacting of them services and coin- 
pelling them toperjorm labors without rendering them 
any just and equivalent in return, and with an equal 
view to their oion benefit." p. 9. 

In this definition are recognized traits which must be 
considered as effects, and as nothing else. 1st. The 
using of human beings not as such, but as ''things" and 
as "beasts." 2d. Exacting of them hard "services" 
and "labors." Now we defy any man to show these 
traits as causes in themselves. But they can very read- 
ily be shown to be the results of some other cause. — 
For no man can treat another as a "thing," and as a 
"beast" and exact services and labors without compen- 
sation, unless he first have him in his power and posses- 
sion. Again: 

Our author tells us, page 10, "those who are slaves 
have been violently made such, and they are now kept 
in this state by force and arms." Force, thru, becomes 
necessary to make a slave. But where in this defini- 
tion do we find it requisite ? For auulit this definition 
informs us slaves may be voluntarily bought, or hired ; 
there may be no compulsion Whatever ! Indeed, our au- 
thor would have us believe, that primarily, i. e. in ma- 
king slaves, — it was altogether unnecessary : for he 



70 

makes force, or the violently depriving the "slave of 
his right to himself," as a result of the slave system ; — 
not as the cause of it, or an essential feature in it. Com- 
pulsion then has nothing to do primarily with the slave 
system, and is only to be deprecated as an evil resulting 
from it ! The following is therefore a simple literal ver- 
sion of our author's definition and the results of his sla- 
very system. "A harmless or voluntary possession and 
holding of the human species as property." And from 
this inoffensive sort of slavery originates the gigantic re- 
sults of arbitrary power of the master "over the peace, 
the health and life of the slave !" of "violently depri- 
ving him of his right to himself, his right to the free use 
of his own will, reason, judgment, and labors ! !" What 
confusion ! If this is the system of slavery against which 
he levels his artillery, well may he exclaim, "Such are 
a few of the features by which this system may be dis- 
tinguished from any thing and every thing which was 
ever tolerated by the God of the Bible under the name 
of servitude or slavery !" or before ever known among 
men ! 

This definition we are to receive as characterising the 
slave system in this country ! How egregiously have all 
abolitionists heretofore misrepresented this whole sub- 
ject ! Force, which obliges the slave to submit, we 
have ever before been told, by these philanthropists, was 
essential to the system. But we are here fain told, it 
is no such thing ! Compulsion is no part of the plan ; — 
Slavery can' exist without it ! And even when our au- 
thor told us, that "slaves have been violently made such," 
it is to be supposed his mind had not had time to regain 
its wonted equilibrium after consulting his authors, 
'•'Strand's Lavv ofSlavery, Rankin's Letters on Slave- 
ry, Torry's Portraiture ofSlavery," &c. 

It is presumed we shall not be told that the sentence 
we have selected was not intended as a definition, for 
the following reasons : 1st. The question is asked, 
"What is slavery ?" "Especially, what is that kind of 
slavery which prevails in this country," &lc. Then af- 
ter giving an account of the importance of settling this 



71 

point, our author proceeds, "We observe, then, that by 
slavery, in this country, is meant the possession" he. 
2d. By the sentence being in italics. 3d. By the re- 
mark, "This kind of slavery" — i. e. such as he had de- 
fined in the italicised sentence — "may be distinguished 
by the following remarkable particulars." These three 
particulars make it apparent that the sentence quoted 
was designed as a definition for slavery. And as such 
we shall claim the privilege of making a few more re- 
marks upon it. 

And first, the proper definition given. This is the first 
member of the sentence — "the possession and holding of 
the human species as property." The other part of the 
sentence expressing merely sequences, for reasons be- 
fore noticed. Negro slavery, then, consists, in this 
country, in "the possession and holding of the human 
species as property." As we before remarked, force is 
entirely a non-essential. If a man can get the "posses- 
sion" of another, so as to "hold" him, it matters not 
whether he be taken as captive, or by a voluntary 
trade. 

The method of holding slaves howevordoes not seem 
to hold a very prominent place in the sense of this ex- 
pression. That of "property" seems to be the all ab- 
sorbing topic. Unless the expression, ''property," find 
a place in all descriptions of slavery, Abolitionists think, 
it would seem, that that appalling evil is neither descri- 
bed nor defined. We shall therefore give this idea a 
passing notice. And here permit us to remark, that the 
value of a slave depends on his ability to labor. Efia 
body, aside from his labor, is of no value whatever ; be- 
cause it can be put to no use. Consequently, how much 
soever it might have been valued once, while active and 
athletic, is entirely void of value when dead. So also, 
if the slave be sick or lame. If his disability be perma- 
nent, the master, in point of property, may consider him 
even worse than a dead slave. If it he not, in its nature 
permanent, the master values him just in proportion to 
the difference between the expense of "raisin g him,* 
and the amount of labor he will probably accomplish if 



he gets his health. Now if slavery consists essentially 
in "property" "held in man," the master's property in 
his slave, holds a just proportion to the labor he is capa- 
ble of performing. Consequently, if from permanent 
disability he can perform no labor; that slave is consid- 
ered as worthless. And that property which was once 
held in him, is now lost ! He is, therefore, no slave ! 
Even although such an one may be whipt, and scourged 
every day for his supposed stupor and sullenness ; yet, 
because he cannot be sold, he is no slave ! ! 

That there is something more than simple "property 
in man" necessary to constitute slavery is still farther il- 
lustrated in the case of those negroes, who, having been 
sold into slavery, afterwards prove their liberty. In 
these cases all the steps had been gone through with, as 
with real slaves. Why then were they not slaves ? — 
Because simple property of itself cannot make them. 
Property, simply, can never give a man any power what- 
ever to "hold," or to "possess" a slave. The slave 
must be made such by some other principle, or he is 
never made. All that property can do, is to be the 
medium through which a negro, who is already made a 
slave, can be transferred from one owner to another. — 
And this, property will do among white men, as well as 
among black. A farmer hires a white servant for a"spe- 
cified time; but soon sells him, or transfers him, for his 
services' sake, to his neighbor A. B. or C. during the 
remainder of the time, for another stipulated sum. And 
who ever supposed such a servant was a slave ? And 
yet, in one sense he was bought and sold ; — i. e. for his 
services' sake. So are slaves sold, for their labors' sake. 

It may be objected, that the question of slavery does 
not so much turn on "property," as on the power of 
"holding" or "possessing" this "property." 

If by this "power," is meant the control of the slave's 
liberties, so as to have the power of holding property in 
man a secondary circumstance ; we have nothing to ob- 
ject. We ourselves believe this to be the fact. For 
the power of holding him as property is in common with 
the power requiring of him labor. For with the slave, 



73 

the power of requiring the one, as well as of holding the 
other, originates from the same source, the entire subju- 
gation of the slave to his master, or, in virtue of the re- 
lation between the master and slave. 

But, if the "power is to be only commensurate with 
the property ; then, when the property disappears, the 
"pow T er" disappears also. Consequently, the slave 
who is permanently disabled, is no slave ! For in such 
an ene, the master has no "power" to hold property ; 
merely, from the simple fact that there is no property 
there ! The idea oi "power of holding" &£c. is as fal- 
lacious as that of property itself as a test of slavery. — 
They both turn on the same point. For as property is 
made essential to the slave condition, the power, by 
which it is held, is necessary only for this purpose. But if 
slavery consists in the power "of possessing and of hold- 
ing the human species as property, "there is a manifest 
impropriety in considering the holding of property in 
man," as a cause; — for it is obviously the effect. For 
the "power," must necessarily precede the existence 
of the "property." The very idea that "power" is 
necessary in order that one man can hold "property" 
in another, proves that "property" is the consequence ; 
and that the "power" is the cause. The palpable incon- 
sistency, therefore, of considering "property in man" as 
an essential to slavery, is clearly manifest. 

We know it is urged by some, that slavery consists 
neither in "property" merely, or in the "power" of hold- 
ing property, but in the "right" of so doing. A very 
slight attention indeed to this point will show its utter 
futility. The simple idea is this; — the simple "ri^ht" 
of holding property in man, constitutes slavery. No 
matter whether that slave is saleable or not, so long a^ 
his master has lhe"right" to sell him, — were he salea- 
ble, — he is a slave. The futility consists in supposing 
a "right" to a thing, as synonymous with the m 
"possession" of that thing. Or, in other wcrds, to ap- 
ply to the case under consideration, in supposing the 
"right to sell a thing the same as the actual sale of it. 
Now every body knows there is a wide difference be- 
7 



74 

iween a man's "right to sell," and his actual selling.— 
Between the "right" of possession, and possession it- 
self; — or between the "right" to sell, and the actual 
sale, there appears a very perceptible odds. A man 
may have the "right" to possess a thing, while the ac- 
tual possession thereof is in some other person's hands ; 
— or he may have the "right to sell a thing as property, 
while the thing itself is unsaleable, and therefore cannot 
be sold. Just as a man obtains the "right" to possess 
the highest prize in a lottery by buying one of its tick- 
ets. If a man buy a ticket in a lottery, that ticket, af- 
ter it is paid for; gives that man a "right" of which no 
other man can forcibly deprive him of possessing what- 
ever prize it may draw, even if it be the highest in the 
lottery. And this "right" is just as strong the moment 
the ticket is purchased, as it is after he gets the prize 
into actual possession. The uncertainty of his draw- 
ing a prize, does not affect his "right" in the least. — 
Yet the bearing it has on his "possesssion" of it is obvi- 
ous enough to be seen by any one. So also, after the 
ticket, is purchased, its owner has a "right" to sell that 
"right," and make merchandise of it. Consequently, it 
must be viewed, to him in the light of "property." This 
••right" to the prize, can be bought, — and it can be sold 
and may be transferred Irom one owner to another in 
the same way as any piece of property whatever. And 
yet, who of them has ever possessed it ! 

The difference between the "right" to property for 
the purpose ot sale, and its actual "possession" is well 
illustrated in the method practised by some recently, in 
the "Eastern speculation" of buying "Bonds." By 
ibis meihod, A agrees to let B have a certain piece of 
property for a certain stipulated sum, provided B pays 
that sum within a given time. To secure this chance 
for "trade," B comes under bonds to A, for another 
sum, to abide the agreement, or pay the forfeiture. ' By 
this method, A has the "right" to sell this property 
bonded to him by B, at any period of the time specifi- 
ed. But he has no "right" to occupy it — improve it, — 
or "possess" it. As an article of property A has 



7a 

every right to it during the time named. He may givi 
it away, — "swap" it — sell il, — or it may be taken on le- 
gal process. It therefore does not necessarily iollow, that. 
because a man has a ''right'' of "property" in a thing 
that he actually possesses that thing, or that that thing is 
altogether under his control. 

So it is with the slave. If slavery consists in the 
simple "right of "holding property in man;" or the 
"right" of holding "human beings" as "we hold prop- 
erty," then it follows that the poor slave is not in so pit- 
iable a situation as we have fain been made to believe ! 
For, so long as he is a mere creature of the "rights" of 
sale, and of possession, he may actually "possess" him- 
self. Consequently, he is "his own man" as to his la- 
bor, occupation and mental endowments. 

We are aware that the two last objections are not ne- 
cessarily, appended to our author's definition. For view- 
ing that definition in its proper relation to its inferred re- 
sults, we cannot see the propriety of hnving the "poirci' 
of possessing, and of holding human beings as properly : 
or even the "right" of so doing, take the place of l cause.' 
For they areboth made, in the work before us, "n^ults." 

Now if they are results, how can they be the cause : 
There is, therefore, a manifest inconsistency somewhere 
about this writer. In short, we have scarcely seen so 
confused, — so jumbled up, — or so distorted a mass of 
ideas in so short a space, as occurs in the first three pa- 
ges of the work under consideration. We are first told 
that slavery essentially consists in both its Causes Bud 
Effects : — and secondly, that its results consist ol its 
Causes and Effects also ! The true English of which 
appears to be ; A "cause," can produce itself! ! and BO 
"effect" can be produced without a cause ! ! ! 

We therefore say, that, whatever good interna ns Mr 
Sunderland had in view in giving the world this difini- 
tion with its logical results ;-— or however clear his mind 
might have been on the subject previously to his com- 
mitting his thoughts to paper: we must he permitted, 
respectfully, to suggest, that he has utterly failed of hit 
object! In his endeavoring to answer the que- 1 



16 

"What is slavery V* he has rendered darkness ten times* 
more visible ! He has shown that he is a warm profes- 
sed friend of the Negro slave, while at the same time 
he has no definite idea of the subject. He wishes to 
cut a tremendous figure in the cause of emancipation, 
but misses in the proper place, the commencement. — 
At one time he tells us, slaves have "been made such 
by "force of arms;" at another, that it is unnecessary ! 
Again, that, "the using of men "not as human beings, 
but as things and beasts," is a cause ; and subsequently, 
virtually, as effect. Slavery is now a voluntary* posses- 
sion of the human species as properly ; and anon, slaves 
are violently made such ! 

If, therefore, Mr. S. has defined any thing, it cannot 
be Negro slavery ! And we fear, that, should he imag- 
ine he had got slavery in such a tangible iorm that its 
complete overthrow is inevitable from the first broad- 
side discharge of his artillery, he will find, on close, thor- 
ough and impartial inspection, that he has been fighting 
all the while, an ignis fatuus ! 

But the evils of which he complains, if they do in 
reality exist in the garb he puts upon them, or even in 
any garb whatever, call loudly upon humanity for re- 
dress. And it is confidently hoped that some efficient 
and practicable course will be adopted to remove eve- 
ry vestige of the evils of Negro slavery from our land. 
But while the attempt is making, let us keep the natural 
distinction good, between the slavery system and the evils 
resulting from it, and we shall act the more efficiently. 

In looking over these evils however, they being nine in 
number, we really thought we did not know what part 
of the inhabitants of that slave region were the most to 
be pitied ; the master or the slave. The following are 
his words : —"Its direct and legitimate tendency and in- 
fluence on the minds of both the enslaver and the ensla- 
ved is, to deaden the conscience and prevent the salva- 
tion of the soul !" p, 10. A question occurred to our 

*We call it a voluntary possession, because we do not know what 
oher appropriate epithet to apply to that kind of possession which. i% 
obtained without force or compulsion. 



77 

mind, are all the inhabitants of that region who have 
slaves, lost forever ! ! Is there no hope ! No, certainly ! '. 
Gone, forever gone ! ! ! For this influence on the mind, 
it must be remembered, i3 not a Voluntary one: but it 
exists in nature; man has no control over it, so long B9 
the cause of it — slavery — exists. Man being, necessa- 
rily a sinner, according to this doctrine, when he obtain- 
ed hh first slaves; and not having had his mind suffi- 
ciently awake to enable him to seek to become a better 
man when his conscience was free and active, unham- 
pered by any of the torpifying influences of slavery : i* 
it natural, is it reasonable, to suppose he would alter his 
course under all the benumbing influences of slavery on 
his conscience, when that torpitude incremted with 
revolving day while he held slaves ? Surely not. There 
is no moral possibility, therefore, that such can be saved ; 
and if slavery is sin, God will never save them. For he 
will save no one in his sins. How lamentable indeed 
must be the situation of those masters ! Slumbering over 
the brink of remediless ruin ! Forever shut from the 
kingdom of God; and destined never to enjoy happi- 
ness beyond the grave! How solemn ! how awful the 
thought ! How happy ought we to be — how thankful 
beyond expression ought our hearts to be — that this 
wretched, this most deplorable situation is not permitted 
to afHict us. 

Our author tells us farther ; that '-'it is perpetual, de- 
scending from one generation to another." Now this 
perpetuality of slavery must either be inherent, insepa- 
rable Jrom it; one of its characteristics ; or else a for- 
tuitous circumstance attending it. In either case, it 
will not help our author. For he Undoubtedly holds up 
this as an unexceptionable feature of slaver) . in older to 
produce disgust in the minds of the friends of humanity 
against slavery. For, if perpetuality is a characti ristic 
of slavery — inseparable from it — in rein is it to makw 
the endeavor to abolish it. For this you can not do, 
unless you can change the nature of perpetuality. Hut 
if it is only a. fortuitous circumstance, then slavery mas 
exist without it. Consequently perpetual it v will 
7* 



78 

ther militate against, or in favor of slavery. It is mere- 
ly a "bug-bear" to effect that which argument will not, 

We are told, "it is a pow T er over the peace, purity, 
health, character, liberty, (life and salvation) of the 
slave, which nothing but the will or consent of the mas- 
ter can dissolve." Now this we distinctly deny. 

1st. No law can be made by any State, repugnant to 
the general tenor and scope of the laws of the United 
States. 

2d. No law can be made with the avowed purpose of 
destroying purity, health, or character; or even peace, 
much less the life and salvation of the slave I That the 
power which masters have over their slaves has been ta- 
ken advantage of by some, is freely admitted. But to 
the idea that laws are made for this avowed object ; or 
that they can be exercised in this way, by fair implica- 
tion, we enter our unequivocal denial. Until the finger 
is placed upon the chapter and verse where such things 
are recognized, we shall hold the authors of them guilty 
of a base fabrication. 

3d. The will of the master is superior even to the law, 
according to our author. "Which nothing but the will 
and consent of the master can dissolve." Here then is 
a clear avowal that the will of the master is superior to 
the law. Now if such a master has abused his slaves, 
why blame the law — that could not prevent him, so long 
as his own will is above it. But "these masters make 
the laws." Indeed ! And in virtue of that, can they 
make a law to cut the throats of all such as they dislike, 
either black or white ? 

"The master may compel the slave to endure hard- 
ships, and to perform labors which are inhumanly wast- 
ing to his health and life." And so may a father deal by 
his son. But this usage is only fortuitous. The master 
may use him very kindly. Even make him "lord of his 
whole house" as did Pharaoh, Joseph, and Abram hi* 
servant Eliezer, 

"It deprives him of all adequate protection of his per- 
?on, his character and morals !" 

Wonderful ! Cannot a slave be moral ? Can he not 



79 

sustain a virtuous and christian character ? And must 
his person be abused ? If so, who is to blame ? The 
Abolitionist answers, the system of slavery. It is denied. 
All that that system drives to the master, are the liberties 
ol the slave, which liberties he is as sacredly bound to 
respect as he is his own. And no law can be constitu- 
tionally enacted to alter that respect wantonly. That 
people do not uniformly respect that liberty is notorious, 
for they do not respect their own. "Will our author 
give us a well vouched instance wherein a master prop- 
erly respected his own liberties, that did not respect 
these of his slaves ? If scoundrels take undue license 
with their slaves, it is no more than the same class of 
people take otherwheres. It exists a? well among the 
"free" as the "bond." And so is flagellation also some- 
times practiced. But is this a proof that there is no law 
against these abuses, because they exist? 

"It crushes and kills the human mind, by violently 
withholding and preventing all suitable instruction in let- 
ters and science." 

If this is a true representation of slaves, they must 
certainly be in a singular state ; living bodies, with "crush- 
crf" and "killed" minds! Really indeed, abolitionists 
would not turn nearly three millions of such fools and 
idiots loose upon our generosity ! We know they would 
not. They would rather that this race, at least, would 
stay with their masters undoubtedly, as our Hospitals and 
Alms-houses would, as yet, hardly contain them. 

But let us examine this sentence a little more closely. 
That the mind becomes more expanded and enlarged by 
exercise in science, is evident, and the withholding of 
letters, at present, is a grievous step. Yet, be this right 
or wrong, it is a sentiment no where found in our creed, 
that the wrnt of these helps necessarily destroys the 
mind. Facts are too strong to the contrary. The book 
of nature is always open before them, as well as before 
us. And beside, il the mind is to be Am destroyed 
merely from the simple want of instruction in letters, 
there are thousands, and hundreds of thousands who are 
in the very same predicament, and yet who are not 



80 

slaves either. But again : the sentiment is denied in 
toto, that by this want of instruction, the mind is made 
one jot less than it was formed by nature. It can not be 
proved that it is. Even the case of Casper Hauser, with 
as little trace of intellect as he evinced, is proof in our 
favor. 

'•'It shortens human life, by violently compelling the 
slave to endure rigorous hardships, and to perform exces- 
sive labors." p. 10. 

That human life may be shortened by "excessive la- 
bor and rigorous hardships" is evident. Yet it does not 
necessarily follow, that life must be shortened by such 
means. The case of the Israelites in Egypt is an ex- 
ample in point. Yet it is presumed there are very few 
cases indeed where the lives of slaves have been shorten- 
ed by these means. There is but little, if any, differ- 
ence between the longevity of slaves and their masters. 
And as to disease, they have as great an immunity as 
any people. Intermittent fever, — fever and ague, they 
resist much longer than the northern whites ; whereas 
if their systems were so broken down by hard labor, we 
should suppose, they would be very subject to it. 

The above remarks are sufficient to show that all 
these evils of which our Author complains, are not insep- 
erable from slavery. For, setting the loss of liberty a- 
side, that state can exist which can be called nothing 
else but slavery, and yet without any of the evils enu- 
merated by our Author. Consequently slavery is one 
thing ; and these evils which sometimes attached them- 
selves to it, but are not necessarily connected with it, 
are another. To have a fair, candid and an impartial 
view of the subject, our author ought to have kept this 
distinction obviously in view. 

"Such are a few of the features by which this sys- 
tem maybe distinguished from any thing and every thing 
which was ever tolerated by the God of the Bible, un- 
der the name of servitude or slavery." 

We think we have made it evident that the evils enu- 
merated by our author are not an essential part of slavery , 
although they may co-exist together. For. if they are- 



81 

essential, then they must all be present in every case of 
slavery that exists in the land. But to this, we hardly 
think our author would be willing to subscribe, for his 
good sense must teach him that in all probability there 
are some exceptions, where a slave is treated differently 
from this. Where then is the propriety in Slaying that 
slavery in these United States, is characterized by these 
evils ? Where is the candor in doing it? Acting on the 
same principle, you might select a number of the worst 
characters that are to be found in the land, such as mur- 
derers, drunkards, adulterers, liars, he. and then, hold- 
ing them up to the world exclaim, "such are a few of 
the features by which Americans are distinguished from 
any body and every body that existed in the Old World." 
The one course is just as justifiable as the other. One 
thing is known from another by its characteristics; but 
an evil which occasionally grows out of any principle is 
no more a characteristic of that principle, than it is the 
principle itself. Even if it should occur 999 times in a 
thousand. Still it is not a characteristic. For a char- 
acteristic must never fail. Hence, heat is a character- 
istic of fire; and coldness of ice. But will our author 
aver that all the evils he has enumerated are alvays at- 
tendant on slavery ; that they are never absent in a sin- 
gle case ? We presume not. Where then is the can- 
dor, or even courtesy, in saying "such are the features, 
(characteristics) by which this system is distinguished 
from any thing and every thing that was ever tolerated 
by the God of the Bible, &c. ? 

He continues — "It is truo a certain kind oC slavery 
was tolerated by some of the Old Testemeni writers : 
but then it differed radically from the system of slave- 
holding, which prevails in these United States." In 
this quotation it is admitted, 1st. That slavery did ex- 
ist, or was tolerated by some of the Old Testament fcrrt- 
1<rs. 2d. That this slavery was different radically from 
that which prevails now. A question occurs, whtt kind 
of slavery could that be, to be radically different from 
the present form ? To be radically different, it must bi 
different from the root ; its basis different. But. per- 



S2 

haps our author means, that, inasmuch as the slavery of 
which he was speaking, was simply the "investing of 
property in man ;" ancient slavery consisted essentially 
in the whole and entire loss of liberty. That they were 
entirely "in the power of the masters to whom they be- 
longed." 

"Besides, if any kind of slavery may be tolerated 
now, under the gospel dispensation, because a certain 
species of it existed among the Jews anciently, or be- 
cause Christ and his Apostles did not say in just so 
many words that "slaveholding under all circumstances 
of the case, is sin against God," then it follows by the 
same rules of interpretation, that polygamy is justifiable 
now, by the Bible, for some of the patriarchs were po- 
lygamists, and they carried out their views by their 
practice." 

Our author seems to think that, because Abraham, 
David and Sampson were polygamists, polygamy stands 
on the same footing with that of slavery in the Old Tes- 
tament; and because Christ has not denounced slavery 
as sin, in just so many w T ords, that the one can be pro- 
ved as well as the other from the New. Here we are 
at issue ; and that for the following reasons : — 

1st. Slavery was a political regulation dictated by 
God, and controlled by moral obligation. Lev. 25: 44 v 
45, 46. 

2nd. Polygamy had no such authority. There is 
no command or precept in the Bible, requiring a man 
to have more than one wife, at the same time. 

3d. There is evidence enough to prove that it was 
never the design of heaven that polygamy should exist. 
See Gen. 2: 44, Eph. 5: 31, Mark 10: 8, Math. 19: 
5. In these places, one man and one woman only are 
lawfully recognized as "man and wife." 

4th. In consequence of the prevalence of the custom 
introduced by Lamach, the grandson of Irad, and great 
grandson of Enoch, it was undoubtedly extremely com- 
mon ; so much so, that its criminality had been lost 
sight of. Consequently, all the nations of the earth 
practised it. The Israelites, while in Egypt, among 



ihose heathen, had become so familiar with it, that the) 
had adopted it among themselves : and by long use, 400 
years or more, they could see no harm in it, considering 
it lawful and as a principle of innate nature, when the 
law was given by Moses. It is almost unnecessary to 
state, that the practice existing so long, strong attach- 
ments would naturally have been formed in its favor, as 
well. as a great variety of relationships, which it would 
be extremely dangerous to sever. Hence, 

5th. The Mosaic law suffered polygamy to exist for 
the present. Probably choosing the less of the two e- 
vils. But where is the parallel to this in the history of 
Ancient Slavery ? Where is there an intimation that it 
was simply suffered} So much to the contrary of this 
is it, that there is an express declaration in its favor. 

6th. There appears to be no parallelism between 
them. One is directed, the other is permitted : — the 
one is recognized by Christ and his Apostles ; see Math. 
25 : 14 — 30. 1 Tim. 6 : 1 — 4 ; the other is very 
plainly reprobated. I. Tim. 3 : 2, 12, Tit. 1 : 6. 
Math. 19: 5, Mark 10:8. See also our Lord's dis- 
course concerning divorce, in 19u chapter of Matthew. 
The crime of adultery here does not so much consist in 
the iepudiation of the wife, as in the cohabiting with 
the second woman while the first is living. See Rom. 
7: 2,3. 

The one is obviously comdemned by Holy writ, 
while no such condemnation is app 'tided to the other. 
The one can be proved to be not in accordance with 
the tenor of even the Mosaic political law ; while the 
other was consistent with it. 

7th. There are express commands against the multi- 
plication of wives even in the Old Testament. See 
Deut. 17: 17, (1 Cor. 7: 39, Sudd,) Mai. 2 : 11 
to 16. 

But none against slavery as fin. 

8th. I( a man had two wives already, Deut. 12 : 1 ">, 
then the law of Moses directed, that, in distributing hi* 
goods, the man should make the fust horn son of the ha- 
ted wife, take the place of the first born of the belovod 



84 

wife. This, from its very nature, we see was intended 
as a sort of reprimand for having two wives. For had he 
before had but one, this unpleasant task to his feelings, 
could have never accrued. But where do you find a 
reprimand even similar to this, for slavery ? It is true, 
a man could not "steal" a slave ; yet that was no rep- 
rimand against slavery itself; it being merely directed a- 
gainst the manner of obtaining them. For a man 
could buy them notwithstanding. Neither the fact that 
a master must free his slaves when they had sustained 
a loss of an eye or a tooth through his violence, any 
better argument. As these commands were mere rep- 
rimands or punishments for their brutal violence. 

"If he take him another wife" &tc. Ex. 21: 10. — ■ 
Here is a 'permit for a man to have another wife, when 
the first one ivas or had been, a slave, see 8th and 9th 
verses. In which case, the father of the son thus mar- 
ried, was not to "diminish" the "food," the 'raiment" 
or the "'duty of marriage" to the first. The objects in 
this provision were undoubtedly two ; the 1st, equity 
and justice to the first wife ; and the 2d, a reprimand to 
the husband and father. For so long as the husband 
was well satisfied with the first wife, it is hardly to be 
supposed, he would take another. Consequently, the 
using of a disliked wife, during the whole course of her 
life, in the same manner with a beloved one, could be 
no small tax on the feelings of his nature. 

These feelings therefore would be continually remind- 
ing him of the unhappiness of polygamy. 

The whole scope of the requirement of the law in ca- 
ses of polygamy had an obvious leaning against it; and 
designed ultimately to bring it into disrepute. 

But where do you find that obvious bearing against 
slavery ? Where is there a single passage, which directly 
goes to show, in any way, that it was ever designed to 
be done away. By this we do not mean, that it never 
was designed to be done away ; but that we have »• 
evidence of it in scripture. But so far to the contrary, 
that every precaution is taken to make a state of slavery 
rather desirable, than otherwise. A slave enjoyed the 



85 

^same religious rights as a Hebrew ; was circumcised, — 
offered sacrifices, — was not "vexed" nor "oppressed :' 
and were to bejoved," so far as external treatment was 
concerned, as they "loved themselves." Consequently 
were to be well fed and clothed. What is there in all 
this calculated to make slavery undesirable ': Or to cre- 
ate a disgust against it? Surely nothing. But can you 
say as much in favor of polygamy ? 

9th. Farther: In effect, Christ has put h\$vetd upon 
polygamy in his condemnation of adultery. It is 
obvious, that where polygamy exists so extensively as it 
did among the Hebrew's and the neighboring nations, 
that there must be discontents, animosities. quarellrags, 
and almost every variety of discord nameable both a- 
mong the wives themselves, and even frequent] v, be- 
tween the husbands and wives. And unless there was 
a way devised by which the husband could divest him- 
self of these restless and discontented wives, conse- 
quences the most serious might happen. To remedy 
this disastrous state of things, Moses granted them the 
privilege of "Divorce." Truly was it said then, "for 
the hardness of your hearts Moses suffered you to put 
away your wives," for "in the beginning it was not so." 
That is, in the beginning when one man married but one 
woman, divorce was not necessary : but now since your 
hearts are so "hard" as not to observe the original 
institution by God himself, but practice polygamy, "Mu- 
ses suffered you to put away your wives," to prevent worse 
consequences. But this "putting away the wife" Christ 
condemns, except, for the cause of "fornication." Con- 
sequently polygamy which was in a great measure the 
cause of it. It was also condemned in the Old 'I 
ment. See Mai. 2: 15, 1(J. 

But no where does he condemn slavery in this man- 
ner. He even indirectly approves of ft, or at least con- 
siders it harmless. For he compares the kingdom oi 
heaven to a master and his slaves. Where, the children 
of men are obviously considered as possessing nothing of 
their own, but even their lives, liberties, labors, bodu S 
and every thing they call their own, belongs not to them 
8 



86 

but to their Father in heaven ; just as the slave possess- 
es nothing, but every thing he has, his body, his life, even 
his labor and effects are all his masters. See Matt. 25 : 
14. In any other sense the parable does not hold. 

The reasons above assigned make it also clear, that 
polygamy cannot be proved by implication ; even if it 
is necessary to have recourse to this means to prove the 
propriety of slavery, from the New Testament. For 
notwithstanding both these systems are implicated in 
the New Testament, yet what is unfortunate for our au- 
thor, this implication is directly against polygamy ; but 
in favor, rather than otherwise, of slavery. Hence we 
have nothing to fear from the attempt to support polyg- 
amy on the same basis, with slavery. There is no par- 
allelism between them. 

It is no argument, to prove here that the word of God 
speaks against sin, oppression, unmerciful labor, rigor- 
ous service, starvation, flagellation, theft, murder, re- 
venge, rape, &ic. For these, however closely they 
may be associated with slavery, are no more the char- 
acteristics of it than they are of the principles of the A- 
merican Constitution, or that of any genuine evangeli- 
cal Christian church. And he who would seize upon 
these crimes and offences against God and man, and hold 
them up to the view of the world in order to bring con- 
tempt and scorn on what slavery in reality is, might 
with the same propriety, hold up the same crimes, to 
condemn our national Liberty, and the principles of the 
church to which he belongs ! 

If slavery can be tolerated by the Bible, then by the 
same rules, can "private revenge, murder, offensive 
wars," &ic. be tolerated. 

This is denied. For Christ vetoed the first ; — that 
of murder is an assumption altogether gratuitous, — there 
being no murder in the case referred to. "Numb. 35 : 
19." And as to offensive wers, they were the judge- 
ments of God, — wholly foreign to the subject. In pas- 
sing however, we would just say, the same doctrine is 
almost every day proclaimed from the pulpit, even under 
the gospel dispensation, in the saying, "He that is often 



87 

reproved and stifTeneth his neck shall suddenly be de- 
stroyed and that without remedy." 

"By this law it was made the duty of a man to marry 
his brother's widow : and the master to marry his fe- 
male slave, or set her free." p. 11. For this there was 
a special reason. Did the same circumstances exist now 
as then, the same regulation would be proper. This is 
no objection against slavery. For as it is the transgres- 
sion of the Law of God that constitutes sin ; so what- 
ever breaks that law at one time, will break it at anoth- 
er. Now if a man could innocently marry his brother's 
widow, or even his female slave without sinning' against 
that law then, he can now, under the same circumstances 
— unless it can be proved, that that law of God has either 
been changed or abrogated since. 

If the silence of Christ may be referred to as a justi- 
fication of slavery, then by this same silence, we may 
justify the making, selling and drinking of ardent spirits, 
polygamy, lotteries, theatres, offensive wars, tyranny of 
any kind, — gladiatorial exhibitions, — purgatory, — tran- 
substantiation, — indulgences, and numerous other perni- 
cious errors, which in his day had a "local habitation and 
a name." p. 11. 

Here truly is a formidable list of errors to be establish- 
ed, if slavery is. But supposing slavery should be es- 
tablished, even by the testimony of Christ, would our 
Author "stick to his text?" — and would he give us his 
proofs by which all these errors are to be supported and 
established? Or would he be willing to get out of a 
small place by "picking some pretended flaw" in the 
argument. But as all these errors are to be supported 
by the "same rules of interpretation" as is the relation 
which slavery institutes between master and slave, we 
think his task must be a hard one. The point we pro- 
pose to make out then, is the relation which must exist 
between a master and his slave. 

Our author will, of course, admit with QS, that man in, 
and of himself, has nothing. That he has no jusl and 
hgoi right to his labor, life, liberties, body or mental 
faculties; but that all these belong to the God who 



89- 

made him. Consequently, after man has done all that" 
he can for his God, he is taught to say that he "is an 
unprofitable servant," that he "had done nothing more 
than was his duty to do." 

Here is a frank avowal of man's nothingness and pov- 
erty. Now Christ compares this relation, which ex- 
ists between God and man, to the relation that exists 
between the master and his slave. According to our 
Lord, servants had nothing of their own ; v. 29, 30 
of Matt. 25. The master had a right to do with them 
as he saw Jit ; v. 15, 28, 30. The whole of the ser- 
vants tabors were for their master: not for themselves, 
v. 21, 23, 27. They were accountable to their master : 
v. 20, 22, 24. They labored not for hire ; v. 27. The 
master rewarded their faithfulness with gifts; vs. 21, 
23. The master had a right to 'punish them as he saw 
fit ; vs. 28, 30. But am I told these could not be slaves 
because they could not be sold 2 We reply there is as 
much evidence that they could be sold, as that they could 
not be. And besides, "property in man" is no charac- 
teristic of s lav e ry . 

But farther: The moment any one supposes that 
these slaves did possess any thing of their own, that 
very moment does that individual say that man has 
"whereof to glory." And that man is not wholly de- 
pendant, but that he can help himself some. There is 
no other way therefore to take this parable but to sup- 
pose these servants, slaves. For if they were hired ser- 
vants, then man is blessed just in proportion to the merit 
of his works. If they could not be sold, then has man 
a right to interfere in the government ol Providence ; as 
there is one thing at least which Providence must not do* 
without man's consent ! 

Consequently, Christ was not silent on this subject. 
But compares the requirements of God of the children 
of men, to this very relation. And whenever the rela- 
tion that exists between master and slave is impugned as 
sin, an imputation is cast on our blessed Lord. 

But shall we be met here, with the miserable shift, in 
relation to this subject, that we are properly Gods % be^ 



89 

cause be created us ; but wben man gets a slave, be 
does it by force, against tbe will of the slave, which ia 
not in the. least consulted. 

In the first place, this is no objection to our position. 
as the question, how this man came by his servants, was 
not the point to discuss. But simply the "relation." 
But since it is asked, we will answer it for the present, 
by asking another. Did man come into the world by 
his own consent, or did he not? 

Our author farther states, that, "if the Apostles may 
be referred to as justifying any system of slavery, when 
they direct servants to be obedient to their masters, then 
it follows they sanctioned the tyranny and bloody cruel- 
ties of Nero when they commanded Christians to be obe- 
dient to Magistrates; and by the same rule also, Christ 
justified persecution, when he commanded his disciples 
to pray for those who persecuted them." p. 11. 

Alas for human nature ! If our author finds no strong- 
er arguments than this to prove his positions, we fear he 
will ultimately fail entirely. To a superficial observer 
however, there is something plausible in his favor from 
such assertions as this, but which plausibility fails en- 
tirely when the sentiment is examined. Let us there- 
fore see what can be made of it. 1st. The assertion ad- 
mits the existence of slavery in the apostles' days. 2d. 
That it existed in the church is evident from the texts he 
has cited from Eph. 6 : 9, Col. 4:1,1 Tim. 6 : 2. :*d. 
Mr. S. takes it for granted that slavery is sin, from the 
fact simply that persecution is sin, in virtue of the advice 
given to the persecuted and to slaves, without any regard 
to the import of that advice. That is, inasmuch as it is 
admitted that persecution is sin, and that Christ comman- 
ded the persecuted to pray for the pcrstcutor, so it fol- 
lows that slavery is sin, notwithstanding the advice given 
to slaves to be "faithful," he. The fallacy consists in 
forming a comparison between slavery and persecution, 
merely on the grounds of advice, without having anv 
reference to the import of that advice. The advit •<■ of 
Christ to the persecuted to pray for their •ersecutOTB, 
was based on the idea of the sinfulness of tliat COurje 
8* 



90 

while the purport of the advice to slaves was not based 
on any such idea — at least, there is no evidence of it. 
And should it be said, that just such advice would have 
been given, was slavery a sin, we reply, just such ad- 
vice would have been given, was slavery not a sin. 

We freely admit there is nothing in the gospel which 
favors insubordination of slaves, or disloyalty of subjects. 
Consequently how despotic or cruel soever a govern- 
ment may be, the Christian is enjoined to obey his Ru- 
lers. But in this case, while he submits, he is equally 
enjoined to pray for them ! That "this sin be not laid 
to their charge." But where is there a corresponding 
command for the slave, while he submits to pray for his 
"believing" master that the sin of holding him as a slave 
be not laid to his charge ? In fact, there appears to be 
no relation, touching the sin of the case, between them. 
The one advice is obviously founded on the sin of the per- 
secutor's course ; the other has no such obvious founda- 
tion. It seems to bear a close resemblance, in its char- 
acter, to the admonition, "Wives be subject unto your 
own husbands." And we apprehend that, the relation 
of man and wife, may be dercied against as sin, with as 
much propriety, when held in comparison with Christ's 
advice to pray lor persecutors, as the relation of master 
and slave. It is therefore obviously seen, that it does 
not necessarily follow, that if the advice of the Apostles 
may be referred to as justifying slavery, that Nero's cru- 
elties, or the persecutor's sins, were justified, because 
Christians were to obey magistrates, and pray for perse- 
cutors. For the nature of the advice given, will not 
bear such a comparison. The whole of the objection is 
a miserable sophism. As our author started with the 
intent of proving slavery to be sin, he ought to have en- 
deavored to have done so. But, alas ! when he comes 
to a certain class of texts, he finds it more convenient to 
institute a. forced comparison, leaving others to do that 
which, belongs to himself! 



01 

SECTION 2. 

A few Remarks on the course adopted bi Mi:. 

Sunderland in his Work under review. 

From the remarks in the last section it will be seen 
that the author of the work under review, has taken, or 
endeavored to take that course which would bring to 
view the slavery system in its worst form — although its 
best is bad enough — for the mere purpose, it would seem, 
to represent it as sinful, and the better to have a mark 
at which he could level his artillery, even though it should 
be done at random ! For so long as he has made slave- 
ry to consist in oppression, robbery, theft, rigorous ser- 
vice, cruelty, adultery, .rape, sin, &c. it is no very hard 
task to find passages of Holy Writ against slavery ! In- 
deed, he might take nearly every passage of sacred scrip- 
ture from Genesis to Revelation in proof of his position. 
Not only so, he might go farther still, and say there was 
no other sin in the world but slavery, and that the whole 
Bible was against that, and that alone ! 

With Mr. S., so extensive is the sin of slavery that it 
matters but very little what passage it is which he 
quotes, whether it make for his position in reality, or 
against it — it uniformly has the same application. Or 
even, indeed, if it is entirely foreign to his subject. As 
an example of the second sort of passages we would 
mention, Lev. 25 : 44* — of the third, Isa. 58 : l.f In- 
deed, while reading his production, we were strongly re- 
minded of an anecdote we once heard of a pious minister 
of a former generation. This gentleman had contracted 
such a dislike for Episcopacy, as un scriptural and of hurt- 
ful tendency, that he preached much against it, and 
seemed determined to preach it down. Whatever the 
text he selected, episcopacy would be the theme. N ev- 
er did he get far into the discussion or illustration of his 
subject, before he fell to belaboring the bishops. One 

* Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids which thou sbalt bate, 
shalt be of the heathen thnt are round about you ; of them shall ye 
buy bondmen and bondmaids. 

? Cry aloud, and s.pure not, lift up thy »oic* likr a trumpet, ami 
shew my people their Iftanjgrevion, and the house of Jacob their jiu^. 



92 

of his shrewd hearers, being worn out with the everlast- 
ing din about episcopacy, once gave him for a text the 
first verse in the Bible — supposing it impossible that his 
minister could strain hard enough to get his hacknied 
theme into a sermon from such a text. But he was mista- 
ken. The Sabbath came, the house of God was throng- 
ed ; the preacher, after the usual introductory services 
named his text and began his comment: "Gen. 1 : 1. 
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 
Nothing about bishops here ! God, you see, my brethren, 
never made a bishop ; they are the work of man," &c. 
But not only so, passages are so quoted by him, as to 
make them frequently convey a meaning very different 
from the one intended by the sacred penman. As an 
instance of this, we may mention Nahum 3 : 1 to 4. 
We will first give his quotation, and then the true one. 
"Woe to the bloody city ! it is all full of lies and robbe- 
ries ; the prey departeth not ; the noise of a whip — 
because of the multitude of the whoredoms of the well- 
favored harlot, the mistress of witchcrafts, that selleth 
nations through her whoredoms, and families through her 
witchcrafts." p. 67. The true quotation : "Woe to the 
bloody city ! it is all full of lies and robbery ; the prey 
departeth not ; the noise of a whip, and the noise of 

THE RATTLING OF THE WHEELS, AND OF THE PRANCING 
HORSES, AND OF THE JUMPING CHARIOTS," &tC The 

reason ivhy, in quoting this passage, Mr. S. drew a dash 
after he had written "the noise of a whip" — and omitted 
what immediately followed, we leave the reader to sup- 
ply. So much, then, for the honor and candor with 
which our author comes into the field to w T edge an eter- 
nal war with slavery ! 

But we must haste to give his scripture testimony a 
passing notice. It will not be necessary for us to be very 
lengthy on this, as we have already seen that the ob- 
jects at which he designs to level the force of his scrip- 
ture "testimony" are merely the "effects" or "evils" 
which have, in some instances, grown out of the slavery 
system ; though not necessarily, but, as it were, as an 
abuse of it. Consequently these texts are as much di- 



93 

rected against the sins growing out of the abuse of a re- 
publican government, of civil law, of paternal ties, and 
the abuse of the law of God in any, and even otb( I re- 
spect, as against that of slavery. When, therefore he 

tells us, that murder, theft, inhuman cruelty, adultery. 
rape, &c. are sins, we do not deny it ; we admit it, and 
we as heartily deplore them as he does. The sin oi 
these, and their kindred crimes, we know will. mil. 
pented of, call down the wrath and fiery indignation of 
Heaven upon the authors ot them. And so will they 
also, if committed otherwheres, as well as by m 
with their slaves. For it is a notorious truth that these 
crimes do exist in other places than in slave States. 
Consequently they are not absolutely connected with 
slavery ! And if the system of slavery is answerable for 
all its abuses, then is the Constitution of the United 
States for its abuse at Vicksburg ! and other places ! 

This ''testimony is divided into eleven chapters, each 
of which will form a Section in our review. His passa- 
ges will not be quoted any farther than what are neces- 
sary for the remarks we have to make, but which will be 
referred to, for the convenience of the reader. 

SECTION 3. 

The Testimony of "Moses" against Seavekv. 

This testimony is based on "the bondage of the Is- 
raelites in Egypt, and the measures which pod took to 
liberate them." chap. 1, p. 12. The texts cited, are 
Exodus 3 : 7, 9—2 : -23, 24. In this passage the phrase 
"with Abraham, with Isaac and with Jacob/' i> left <>ut. 
The Israelites were deliver d from bondage, not because 
they "suffered," but in consequence of the eon nant made 
with Abraham, he. 400 years before. Ex. 9: I — 10: 
3—5 : 6 to 8—5 : 12, 13, 14, 19, 20, 21, 22, 28— 6 : 
2, 5, 6, 9. 

If any one will take the trouble to look at the history 
of the Israelites while in Egypt, and theii egress from it, 
we think the following points will appear char. \ r/. : 

1st. The Israelites were as much in slavery nearly 



94 

400 years before that "king arose who knew not Jo- 
seph." as they were after that period. 

2d. Before that period, the inference is plain that they 
found no particular cause of dissatisfaction. When that 
- king arose who would not follow the steps and rules di- 
rected by his predecessors and Joseph their prime minis- 
ter, then was it that they complained. Consequently it 
was not so much "slavery" itself, that grieved them, as it 
was "oppression" and "cruel bondage," consequent up- 
on it. This cruel bondage had for its object, according 
to his own declaration, 

3d. The thirming of their numbers ; seech. 1: 10. 
The children of Israel were too numerous — he must pre- 
vent their multiplying. This he intended to accomplish 
by excessive labor ! The king required of them labors 
beyond their strength ; and even set task-masters over 
them, not to see that they were diligent — but on pur- 
pose "to afflict them with their burdens!" v. 11 — to 
worry them, and to distress them ! And when Moses 
came to expostulate with him, it only vexed him to in- 
crease their affliction by withholding the straw and yet 
requiring the full tally of brick, ch. 5: 6 to 9. And so 
exceedingly worried and distressed were they, that, when 
Moses spake unto them, they hearkened not unto him 
for anguish of spirit ; or, as the margin has it, for straight- 
ness or shortness of spirit ! ! But this failing to accom- 
plish his object, the king next required the Hebrew mid- 
wives to destroy all the male children at birth ; this fail- 
ing, they were next to be thrown into the river ! ! ! Who 
ever before heard of bondage like this ? And yet, strange 
infatuation, Mr. S. tells us, this bondage was certainly 
not so cruel and severe as that v T hich nearly three mil- 
lions of American citizens are now doomed to suffer I ! 
Permit us just to ask our author, when were these 
3,000,000 of American citizens as a class, doomed to la- 
bor beyond their strength ? — when were task-masters ap- 
pointed over them on purpose to afflict them with op- 
pressive burdens to the end that they may not multiply ? 
— when was this principle the avowed object either of 
the laws or of their masters ? — when were slaves, as a 



95 

body in this country, deprived of "straw," and yet obli- 
ged to return "the full tally of brick ?" — when were they 
compelled by their masters to fulfil their "works, their 
daily tasks, as when there was straw:'' — when were 
they compelled to do this, by gaining time in their 
quickened step urged by the lash of their task-masters ; 
— when were they called "idle" and lazy, for not doing 
that which it was impossible for them to do ? — when was 
their desire to worship God, attributed to their laziness? 
when were their midwives commanded to kill their off- 
spring at birth ? or even when were their chilren thrown 
into the River ? We ask again when was all this done ? 
What bondage is there more cruel than what the Israel- 
ites suffered ? Without any fear of contradiction, we 
unhesitatingly answer, none. What then becomes of 
the pompous assertion of Mr. Sunderland ? — that the 
"bondage of the Israelites was not so cruel as that suf- 
fered in "this country !" No great enterprise can ever 
be accomplished by such gross misrepresentation ! Most 
grievously mistakened are those who expect to accom- 
plish their ends by enlisting the passions with "paint" 
alone ! 

SECTION 4. 

Testimony of "Moses" continued. 
"The different kinds of servitude allowed among the 
Hebrews," chapt. 2, p. 17. The texts cited, are Ex. 
21 : 2. The "Hebrew servant" bought in this case, 
our author supposes was a slave, although he could be re- 
tained but six years, p. 22. — Ex. 21 : 7 to 1 1. Here, 
also, our Author admits, a man could sell his daughter 
into slavery, p. 22. — Ex. 22: 2,3. Another way in 
which a Hebrew could get into slavery ! — be sold for 
his theft! Ex. 21 : 20, 16,-22:21 to 24.— Lev. 
19: 11, 13, 14, 18.— 25 : 35, 30 to 43. In this case, 
was thp Hebrew a slave. The very expression, that he 
should be to his master as an hired servant, is evidence 
enough that he was not hired. Neither was he a bond 
servant, for he must have his liberty in the jubilee — he 
being a Hebrew. Lev. 25 : 44 — Numb. 10: i) — Deut. 



96 

5: 19, 21. This does not help our author. There is 
no more need of coveting a slave than there is any piece 
of property whatever. Just buy the slave, and there is 
no coveting about it any farther. Deut. 10: 17 to 19 — 
15: 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. In this case the Hebrew was 
a slave, as I have otherwheres shown. And I notice it 
here just to expose one of our author's sophisms. " Thou 
shalt not Jet him go away empty." This was a matter 
of "justice" says he. "From this and the following 
passages," Deut. 15: 12 and so on to the 18th verse, 
"it appears, that in 6 years, a servant, (slave) among 
the Hebrews, brought a sufficient profit to his master to 
pay him double for his freedom, and to furnish himself 
with grain and stock to begin to labor for his own sup- 
port." Now the verse from which it is presumed the 
above is an explanation, is the 18th which thus reads : 
»"It shall not seem hard unto thee, when thou sendest 
him away from thee : for he hath been worth a double 
hired servant to thee in serving thee six years." — 
Worth a double hired servant ; not hath brought his 
master a sufficient profit to pay him double his free- 
dom ! ! Deut. 15: 14, 18—23; 15—24: 7. This is 
not against slavery, but against stealing them of the He- 
brews'. Deut. 24: 14, 17, 18. 

The passages above quoted are those which Mr. S. 
has given us in his second chapter in testimony against 
slavery ! Of these twenty-seven texts, tivelve expressly 
recognize that very state which our author endeavored 
to disprove by them, viz : Ex. 21 : 2—^21 : 7 to 11 — 
22: 2," 3— 21: 20— Lev. 25: 39 to 43—25: 44: 
Deut. 15 : 12 to 18—23: 15. Ex. 21 : 16 and Deut. 
24: 7. The two last only have been made a handle 
of as evidence against slavery. And these are no proof 
against it. They being merely prohibitions against the 
stealingoi men, or rather perhaps of Hebrews — against a 
certain method of getting them — not against the system, 
for they may be bought notwithstanding. Indeed, in 
five or six of the texts named, it is acknowledged by 
our author himself, that slaves are recognized I And of 



97 

all the other passages* which he lias adduced, there js 
not one which denounces slavery in any shape, much 
less as a sin ! ! And, in fact how could they r If the Mo- 
saic law recognized slavery, how could it denounce it? 

The advice in the texts is addressed to strangers, the 
widow, the fatherless, in which the more wealthy .ire di- 
rected not to withhold their liberality from the poor He- 
brews, nor to retain the wages of the hired servant after 
it was due, &c. But in all things to deal with others in 
their circumstances as they themselves would wish to be 
dealt by, w r ere those circumstances their own. Else, 
why not direct the rich to divide their property with the 
poor, and thus go shares in the whole ? 

SECTION 5. 

Testimony frOxM "Joshua, Job and Ezra." 
"God has always delivered his people from the op- 
pression of their enemies, when they cried unto him for 
deliverance." Chap. 3, p. 29. 

That the Lord will deliver his people, when they 
cry unto him, is evident ; yet what that fact has to do 
with slavery, as a system, it is hard to divine. For, we 
have no evidence that he will ever deliver any, but 
such as are truly his. And even good people are not 
always assisted by him, for the mere purpose of either 
gaining wealth or honors. The principle assumed hen- 
seems to be, that all slaves are the true children of God, 
and to prove it, our Author places them by the side of the 
children of Israel, the chosen people of God who were 
blessed in Abraham, while Ham, the son of Noah 
was cursed ! See Gen. 9 : 22, 25. There is no more 
relation between the children of Israel and the childreo 
of Ham, or negroes, than there is between lie! 
and any other Gentile nation whatever. The applying 
therefore of Judges 2: 18,— 6: 8,9,-10: 12, to the 
slaves as a body, is not warranted by the tenor of scrip- 
ture. 

The other passages cited to prove the position at ibi 

*Ei, 22: 91 to 94— Ltr. 19: 11,13, 14, 18—96 K-Hunl iw 

9— Deut. 10 : 17 to 19—15 : 7, S. 9, 10, 11—24 14 

9 



98 

head of this section are Josh. 9 : 23, — Job 3 : 17 to 19> 
6: 14,-15: 20,21,-20: 19,20,-27: 13,-29:11 
to 13,-15, 16,-31 : 13, 14, 16, 17, 19 to 22,-35 : 
9,-36: 15; Ezra 9: 8, 

Among all these texts, there are but two that have any 
relation to slavery whatever. That in Josh. 9 : 23 and 
Job 31 : 13. The first was servitude inflicted upon the 
Gibeonites for deceiving Joshua and his men ; while the 
latter was a simple acknowledgement by Job that he 
had slaves, and that he treated them as a man should 
who is accountable to the moral law of God. He lov- 
ed them as himself, and did by them as he wished to be 
dealt by. Hear him : "If I did despise the cause of my 
man-servant, or if my maid servant, when they contend- 
ed with me ; what then shall I do when God riseth up ? 
And when he visiteth, what shall I answer?" Job. 31 : 
13. Did Job free his slaves, how then could it be said 
he despised not their cause 1 

The principle "drift" of all these texts is in opposi- 
tion to oppression, and in favor of the poor that are in 
affliction, he. That slaves are oppressed in this coun- 
try very frequently is not denied. But the fallacy lies 
in supposing that oppression is synonymous with the 
simple slavery system. For it is to be remembered that 
a system is a system. And that human laws cannot al- 
ter it. It is inherent in itself. Laws may be made to 
modify its application to us, but they never can alter 
the system itself. It is, so to speak, an essence of it- 
self. Hence, in reality, there is but one system of Di- 
vinity, and this system cannot be altered by any law or 
power whatever. Yet men write treatises on Divinity, 
which are, themselves called systems, — and systems 
they are too which are very different from each other, 
but the only reason of this difference, is, because none 
of the writers of them have a perfect knowledge of the 
one only true system. So also the system of slavery. 
So long as slaves exist, there are certain unalterable 
laws which are binding, and from which no human laws 
can clear the master. These laws are embraced in the 
moral law of God. The laws, then, among the Israel- 



99 

ites which placed the slave in the entire possession of 
his master, nevertheless reminded him of the moral law 
to which he was accountable to his God. And so long 
as the moral law stands, just so long can no human law 
be made to alter the slave system, so long as slaves ex- 
ist. It ought always to be borne in mind that the slave 
system is one thing, and its abuse quite another. The 
system therefore I do not believe is sin. Neither is it op- 
pression. For it must be remembered, that all the 
crimes which are denounced in the Old Testament 
were transgressions of the law. Consequently, noth- 
ing which was recognized by that law could be ei- 
ther sin or oppression. But as the law recognized 
slavery even by our Author's own acknowledgment, 
it follows that these passages are not at all against that 
evil, because they are against oppression and its kind- 
red crimes. They are entirely foreign to the sub- 
ject. If a Hebrew was kept a slave for a time longer 
than six years, then he was "oppressed" in being obli- 
ged to serve that extra time. See Jeremiah 34. But 
he was not oppressed during his service of six years. 
neither were strangers and sojourners oppressed in being 
made slaves forever, and in being an hereditary pos- 
session from father to son. Lev. 25 : 44 to. 46. Con- 
sequently, all the passages in this, and the following 
chapters, against oppression, have no reference to the 
slavery system ; unless they refer to its abuse as in the 
case of the Hebrews ; who as we learn from Jeremiah, 
were oppressed in being obliged to serve more than six 
years. 

SECTION 6. 
Testimony from "David." 
"God has always manifested a peculiar pity and regard 
for the oppressed — and he promises his blessing up- 
on all such as imitate Him in this tiling." Chap. 1. 
p. 37. 

This proposition is undoubtedly intended to embrace 
the two following sentiments : 1st, that slavery is ne- 
cessarily oppression, and that God has a "peculiar pity 



100 

and regard" for slaves ; — and 2dly, that He will bless 
all Abolitionists, because they suppose, they "imitate 
Him" in this thing." 

The falsity of the first position we have already 
shown, — namely, that slavery is necessarily oppression. 
To say that God has a "peculiar pity and regard" for 
all slaves indiscriminately, merely because they have 
no liberties of their own, is a base assumption, and wants 
proof. That he regards such as are his children in truth, 
among slaves, is an evident fact ; for he regards people 
of this class every where, as the texts cited by Mr. S. a- 
bundantly prove. Consequently, when the "poor and 
needy," among any class of people, if they are pious be- 
fore God, are oppressed, they will be heard when they 
cry unto him. 

The second sentiment, as applied to the subject under 
consideration, is the maximum of self complacency, and 
blind impetuosity ! No matter how indiscreet, — how 
malevolent toothers, — how self-sufficient, — how unjust ; — 
no matter by what means, — by what power, — or by what 
principle the machine is made to move, — so long as 
chey have a "peculiar pity and regard" for the poor 
slave, they expect the blessing of Heaven to rest upon 
them ! ! And a peculiar pity and regard it is too ! For 
instead ot forivarding the cause of Emancipation, "it 
has," to use the language of Drs. Reed and Matheson,* 
"thrown back the cause — to a lamentable distance !" — 
For, say they, "it has been resolved on getting the 
wedge i tl : but in fulfilling this resolution, it seems to 
have been careless whether it should e by the butt end 
or the fine one." 

The texts cited in proof of the position at the head of 
this section, are Ps. 10: 17, 18—9: 12,-12: 5,— 
22: 24,-41: 1 to 3,— 42: 8,9,-50? Kito 18,-72: 
land 4— 72: 12 to 14,-82: 3,4,—S9: 15, 16 — 
103 : 6,-119 : 134,-140 : 12,-146 ; 7 to 9. 

For remarks on those passages which speak against 
oppression, see last section. In farther- proof of the 

*Drs. Reed and Matheson were two English gentlemen who vis-, 
ited this country a short time since. 



101 

statements there made let me refer the reader to one 
of the texts quoted above, Ps. 1 19 : 134, "Deliver aw,' 
says D.avid, from the oppression of man," he. Was 
David a slave 1 

The last clause of the last text cited, Psalms 146 : 
9, "but the way of the wicked he turneth upside down," 
applies with as much force to "wicked" slaves as to 
"wicked" masters. The same, or similar remarks may 
be made on all the texts quoted in this chapter. They 
undoubtedly have reference to two characters,— the good 
and the bad ; — to the saint and to the sinner whether 
they be "bond" or "free." 

SECTION 7. 

Testimony from "Solomon," — him who had 100 

WIVES, AND 300 CONCUBINES J SEE PAGE 1 1 . 

According to our Author, Solomon could talk against 
slavery, as well as David, who were, nevertheless, pol- 
ygamists ! If these men denounce slavery, let Mr, S. 
prove that they denounce polygamy ; for, according to 
him, the same "rules of interpretation" by which one is 
supported, the other can be; consequently,, by the 
same rules, that one is denounced, the other can be. 

"God has threatened his displeasure against all suc'.i 
as forbear to deliver the poor and the needy from the 
hands of those who oppress them." Chap. 5. p 13. 

This position is put down in true Abolitionist style. 
The true spirit and tone of which is, no person must 
"forbear to deliver the poor and needy' 1 from their 
"oppressor's hands," even by force, without incurriiiL 
the "threatened" "displeasure" of God ! "Let go you 
shall, either by fair means or foul" appears to be the 
motto of the principle ! Do we misrepresent ? Read the 
following: — "We shall see in the course of these chap- 
ters) that there are as many commends in the IJible to 
a third person, to deliver the oppressed 01 t of the 
hands of the oppressor, as there are commands to the 
oppressor to let the oppressed go free," p. 42 ru 
This, then, is the way in which slavery is to be aban- 
doned now and forever ! Compel those von i 
9* 



102 

urge ! ! Strange enthusiasm ! And does Mr. S. think 
to prove such Jacobinical doctrines by the Bible ? — 
Please to examine his texts. They are the following : 
Pro*. 14: 20,21,-14: 31,-22: 16,-22: 22, 23. 
—23: 10,11—24: 11, 12,-29: 7—31: 8, 9,— 
Eccl. 4: 1,-5: 8,-7: 7,— Prov. 19: 7,-16: 8. 

These passages undoubtedly refer to social duties ; 
those which exist between man and man. Those who 
have the means, are to remember the pious "poor," 
without any distinction of color. The poor white man, 
if pious, is as highly favored of his Maker, as is the 
slave, — and much more so, if the slave is not a Chris- 
tian. That the poor white is oppressed, is as notorious 
as that the black is. And until Mr. S. can show that 
these passages apply to slavery alone, as sin, we shall 
consider him as doing them injustice, and as perverting 
scripture. For in his setting out, he definitely gave us 
to understand, that the testimony which he should ad- 
duce, should be prima facia evidence against it. 

But we may be answered, the only object of these 
passages was to prove the principle laid down at the 
commencement of the chapter. And what of that? — 
Does that prove slavery? By no means. It no more 
proves that slavery is sin, than it proves that civil gov- 
ernments are sins; because oppressions exist under them. 
as well as with slavery. 

SECTION 8. 
Testimony from "Isaiah." 

"God commands the oppressor most explicitly to let 
the oppressed go free." Ch. 6, p. 50. And what if he 
does ? When these commands were given, they could 
be given only as applying at that time to the oppressions 
which then existed. And those acts only were oppress- 
ive ones which contravened the law ; but as siavery did 
not contravene the law, it follows that the "oppressions" 
spoken of in these texts, had no reference to that sub- 
ject, «s a system, but only, if zzy> as abuses of it- Con- 
sequently they are no advantage to our author. 

Texts cited, Isa, 1 : 16, 17— 5: 7—9: 17— Isa. 14.: 



103 

5>, 3. Our author saw fit, from some cause, not to quote 
the whole of this passage, in connection. He begins at 
the latter part of the second verse : "And they shall 
take them captives whose captives they were," &c. — 
Whereas, to have given the true sense, he should have 
began with the first, or a part of it, thus: — "And the 
strangers shall be joined with them, and they shall cleave 
to the house of Jacob. And the people shall take them, 
and bring them to their place : and the house of Israel 
shall possess them in the land of the Lord for servants 
and handmaids." This was left out ; and for what rea- 
son, the reader will see by looking at the passage as it 
stands in Isaiah— Isa. 19: 20—30: 12,13—33: 15, 
16 — 45: 13. The expression in this text refers, prob- 
ably, to Cyrus, the Persian General, who, by taking 
Babylon, liberated the Jews who were in slavery there 
to the Babylonians, without "price or reward." Isa. 
51: 22,23—58: 1,6,7,8,9, 10,11,12—59: 3— 
59: 7, 8,9, 12, 13, 14—57: 14. 

By looking over these scriptures, it will be seen, that 
they refer to the sins and transgressions of the Mosaic 
law, and to those only. To have them assist our au- 
thor, he should have first proved that all slavery was 
against that law, and that the law never recognized any 
"species," or "forms" of it. But instead of this, he has 
acknowledged that a "species" of it did exist under that 
law. Consequently he has been "beating the air" ever 
since ! pp. 10 and 22. 

SECTION 9. 
Testimony from "Jeremiah." 

"God has pronounced the bitterest of woes upon all 
such as are concerned in stealing men — and upon all 
such as use the labors of their species without wages." 
Ch. 7. p. 58. 

Of the sentiment contained in the first part of the 
proposition, we have already expressed an opinion. The 
Hebrews were debarred from stealing one another for 
the purpose of merchandize. See Ex. 21 : 16, and 
Deut. 24 : 7. Yet if slaves were bought, there were 



104 

none of these "woes pronounced." See Ex. 21 : 2— 
21 : 7. Lev. 25: 44 to 46. Consequently, this asser- 
tion is nothing against slavery. 

The sentiment in the latter part of the position we 
admit ; and yet we do not admit that it militates against 
slavery as sin. For, as the position stands, it goes to 
say, that these "bitterest woes are pronounced" against 
all those parents who receive the "labors" of their chil- 
dren, unless they pay them a stipulated price, as ivages. 
No one supposes this is the case. If the parent "ieed 
and clothe his child," every one is willing to admit, that 
he has a right to his child's labors until 21. And must 
such a parent stand accursed with all these "bitterest 
woes" upon his head for thus dealing with his child ? 
Then why the master for the slave, if the master feed 
and clothe him ? Is not this enough ? Was Paul mis- 
taken when he said, "having food and raiment let us 
therewith be content?" 1 Tim. 6 : 8. There is no ev- 
idence that the passage in Jeremiah 22 : 13, has any 
reference to cases of this kind. 

It is a little curious to see how a certain class of men 
work to raise an objection to slavery on the principle of 
"wages." We are often told "their pay is not adequate 
to their labor." And what of that ? Is there an aboli- 
tionist in the land who will obligate himself to give eve- 
ry slave in the country his food and clothing for his labor ? 
And suppose the labor of some is worth more than their 
food and clothing, is that any more than what occurs in 
families among ourselves ? Do not many children earn 
more than they get. And do not hired servants fre- 
quently do more than their wages is worth ? And are 
there not found among us, even in happy New England, 
individuals whose wealth came entirely through the 
hands of others — their servants and domestics ? 

Texts cited. Jere. 5: 26—5: 28—7: 5 to 7—9: 
1,2—21: 12—22: 3—13—17—29: 13,14—34: 10 
_U__17_50: 33,34. 

The same genera! remarks will apply to these, as to 
the preceding texts. We think, however, if our author, 
had looked closely to the 34th chapter of this proph- 



105 

et, he would not have drawn so largely from him ? 
he has. 

SECTION 10. 

Testimony from "Ezekiel. Daniel, Hosea, Joel, 
Amos, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zech- 
ariah and Malachi." — Chap. 8, p. 65. 
This chapter purports to give us "various features of 
the slave system." 

The remarks made at the commencement of section 8 y 
apply here. It is to be remembered that the children 
of Israel were prohibited from being slaves to the heath- 
en, because they were the chosen people of God. But 
if they forsook the Lord and served other gods, then 
were their enemies to triumph over them. Notwith- 
standing the Mosaic law allowed of slaves, yet it provi- 
ded that neither strangers should be vexed, nor Hebrews 
oppressed. The wants of the poor, — i. e. those who were 
net slaves, for the wants of these their masters supplied ; 
and the needy, the widow and the fatherless, were their 
brethren, the Hebrews, to supply. None of their breth- 
ren could they sell to the heathen, nor were the wages of 
the hireling to be detained over night after it became 
due. Hence the expressions in Ezekiel 27 : 13 — Joel 
3 : 3 and 6, &c. because the Israelites had not kept the 
law in these respects, but had broken it. Hence the 
propriety of the passages cited in the work under review. 
They have nothing to do with slavery in particular, at 
all, as a system. 

Texts cited. Ezek. 13: 18, 19—18: 5 to 9— 23 : 
27, 28, 29—27 : 13— Dan. 4 : 27— Joel 3 : 3— Hosea 
12: 7— Joel 3: 6, 7— Amos 2: 6,7. This was strict- 
ly against the law of Moses. Jonah 3 : 8, 9 — Micah 
6: 8, 9— Nahum 3: 1 to 4. The manner in which 
this passage is quoted, looks dishonest. See section 2, 
where this sophistry is exposed. Hab. 1 : 4 — Zech. 
11:4, 5— Mai. 2: 10—43: 5. 

If Mr. S. thinks that he has given us various features 
of the slave system in these texts, we can assure him ho 
is, for once, at least, widely mistaken ! They are no 



106 

more the characteristics of the slave system, properly SO 
called, than they are of the law of Moses. If men trans- 
gressed the rules required in that system, it was no more 
than they did with the Mosaic law. If, therefore, you 
denounce the one, you must the other. The crime? 
then here reprobated were crimes against the law ; and 
if there is any reference had to slavery, it is in those 
crimes committed by breaking those restrictions under 
which the system existed, as established by that law, 

SECTION 11. 

Testimony from "Jesus Christ." 
"Our blessed Saviour did as really describe and con-* 
demn the sin of slaveholding as he did the sin of any 
other practice, to which men are now addicted." Ch. 
9, p. 70. Consequently it is "described and condem- 
ned" as plainly as is that of murder, theft, adultery, ly- 
ing, swearing, &ic. ! 

In none of the passages here adduced, it is said, either 
directly or by implication, that the "loss of liberty" is a 
sin. And it is to be remembered too, that loss of liberty 
did exist under Moses, when the same precepts were in 
force which Christ here enjoins. For he himself says, 
"all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to 
you, do ye even so to them ;" w 7 hy ? "for this is the law 
and the prophets." Matt. 7 : 12. So also, "Love 
the Lord thy God with all thy heart, soul and mind, and 
thy neighbor as thyself." Matt. 22 : 37, occurs, and 
was in force under the law. See Deut. 6: 5. Lev. 19: 
18. And yet slavery could exist harmlessly and inof- 
fensively in connection with them notwithstanding. It 
must, therefore follow, that loss, the entire loss of liber- 
ty, or the entire principle of slavery, is no sin. We 
have nothing to fear from the influence of the texts he 
has cited. The application he makes of them to the 
principles of slavery, is entirely assumed, and wants proof. 
Texts cited. Matt. 5: 7,-11,— 19,— 23,— 44,— 
7: 12,-9: 13,-22: 37 to 39,-2: 23,-25: 44, 
45. Luke 4: 18, 19,-6: 36,-12: 15.— John 15. 
17, 12. Acts 10 : 38. It is extremely hajd to set 



107 

what relation this passage holds to Negro slavery either 
for, or against. Luke 10 : 36. 

SECTION 12. 

Testimony from "St. Paul." 

"The Apostle Paul condemns slavery most explicitly 
— and shows that slave-holding is directly opposed to 
the spirit and temper of the Christian Religion. Chap. 
10. p. 80. 

And we will let the reader see by what strong evi- 
dence this condemnation of slavery is made to appear 
so "explicitly." 

Art thou called being a servant ? care not for it ; 
but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. 1 Cor. 
7: 21. 

Servants be obedient to them that are your masters, 
according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in single- 
ness of your heart, as unto Christ. Knowing that what- 
soever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he re- 
ceive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free." Eph. 
6: 5. 

And ye masters do the same things unto them, for- 
bearing threatening; knowing that your master is also 
in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him. 
Eph. 6: 9. 

Masters give unto your servants that which is just and 
equal, knowing that ye also have a master in Heaven. 
Col. 4: 1. 

Servants obey in all things your masters according to 
the flesh ; not with eye service, as men pleasers, hut 
in sigleness of heart, fearing God. Col. 3 : 22. 

Let as many servants as are under the yoke counl 
their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of 
Cod and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they 
that have believing masters, let them not despise them, 
because they are brethren ; but rather do tin in service, 
because they are faithful and beloved, partaken of the 
benefit. 1 Tim. 6 : 1. 

Exhort servants to be obedient to their own mas; 
and to please them well in all things : not answering again : 



108 

?iot purloining, but showing all good fidelity ; that they 
may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things. 
Tit. 2 : 9. 

Here let me ask the candid and unprejudiced, if these 
passages do not show most clearly, that slavery did ex- 
ist in St. Paul's day, even in the church ? And if it did 
exist either in, or out of it, was it sin, wherever it did 
exist? Would St. Paul give such advice as he did. 
had it been sin ? We think not. 

But then these passages were brought to prove that 
St. Paul condemned slavery most "explicitly." But 
alas ! they are an unfortunate evidence. But what ex- 
planation does our author put upon them to make them 
subserve his purpose? Why, forsooth, that, if "these 
precepts may be quoted to justify the power which the 
master usurps over his slaves, then the commands of 
Christ for the persecuted to pray for their persecutors, 
may be referred to, to justify persecution."* he. p. 90. 

What profound logic this ! To have proved his prin- 
ciple these texts ought to have established the point that 
all slavery is "sin" — sin against God ! For this is one 
ot the main pillars, on which all the Abolition move- 
ments are based. Remove the idea that "all slavery is 
sin," and their principal pretext for precipitancy and for 
immediate emancipation without adapting means to 
ends, ceases. Consequently they can have time to sit 
down and canvass the subject deliberately, — adapt their 
means to the ends desired, and eventually accomplish 
their object with safety. But so long as that "string is 
harped upon" which teaches that all slavery is sin ;" and 
that it is sin to remain in sin another day, just so long 
will there be precipitancy, and rash, head-long steps ta- 
ken, by some at least. All the good such can do to the 
cause of emancipation, will never balance the evil which 
results from their rash movements. Hence, in none of 
Paul's writings can it be made to appear, that slavery is 
"sin." That he looked upon "it in the light of an evil," 
is apparent from his expression, "H thou mayest be 
made free, use it rather." 1 Cor. 7 : 21. If slavery 

* See Section 1 , Chapter 11 . 



109 

was sin, do you think Paul would have connived at it. 
have let it pass in that easy and simple manner in which 
he did, by giving some gentle advice how it should be 
managed and regulated, when he was speaking express- 
ly on that subject? Would he have told servants to be 
obedient to their masters — in singleness of heart, as un- 
to Christ ; knowing that whatsoever good thing any man 
doeth, he shall receive of the Lord, whether bond or 
free? Would he have told "servants — under the 
yoke" to "count their own masters worthy of all hon- 
or ?" And would he have taught "believing masters — 
not to despise" their servants, "because they were 
brethren ?" Would he have taught Titus to '-'exhort 
servants," in his travels, "to be obedient unto their mas- 
ters, and to please them well in all things ; not answer- 
ing again ;. not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity . 7 
We ask again ; would he have done all this, if "sla\ 
was "sin ?" But our Author asks us if this conduct of 
Paul justifies slavery? We will answer him in the 
words of Paul himself, "If" a slave "may be made free."' 
let him "use it rather." When, therefore, he drops the 
expression, if these "precepts may be quoted to jus 
the power," &c. he is away from the proposed subject. 
For he seems to lay it down as a principle that "all sla- 
very is sin." We, therefore, expected he would have 
"stuck to his text" and have given us a "disco 
from it. But in this, it seems, we have not had the 
privilege of being gratified. 

Texts cited, in addition to those quoted above, an 
following: Rom. 12: 9, 10,-1 Cor. 7: •!■). 
this text is no evidence of the sin of slave//, see 1 
lowing verse "Let every man, wherein he is i 
that is, being either "bond" or "free/' — "therein 
with God." v. 21,-1 Cor. L3s 4, 5,-7, Gal. 5 
14— Eph.-l, 1, 2 — 32 — Phil. ->: 3.-1:- ,—C 
4, 3,— Acts, 26 : 29,— Col. 3 : 12. 13.— 1 The* 
6,-1 Tim. 1: 9,— Philemon 16,— Heb. 13: 3. 

10 



110 

SECTION 13. 

Testimony from "St. James, St. Peter, and St. 
John." 
"Slave-holding is farther shown to be a sin by others 
of the Apostles — and we have the testimony of God, 
that the system shall finally and utterly come to an end." 
Chap. 11, p. 93. 

We have before seen, that our Author has complete- 
ly failed in proving the sin of slavery from the testimo- 
ny of "Christ" and of "Paul." It was evident he in- 
tended to prove the fact by Christ, from the spirit and 
tenor of the "Golden Rule." But in this he failed. 
For the spirit and tenor of that Golden Rule was not 
anew institution of Christ after his incarnation ; but ex- 
isted before, in the days of the children of Israel, when 
as Mr. S. himself acknowledges, slavery did exist. — 
Consequently, the quotation of that Rule, and all cor- 
responding texts, can never be applied to slavery in its 
principles, or, in other words, to the entire loss of lib- 
erty, even by implication. For if the tenor of those pre- 
cepts would condemn the entire loss of liberty as "sin," 
now, by implication, it certainly would then. The con- 
sequence would be, that "loss of liberty" could never 
have existed, even by God's permission ; for, he never 
would permit any thing, against the true tenor of bis pre- 
cepts. He never will be divided against himself. 

It is therefore nothing strange that Mr. S. lost his 
case, from the want of testimony to his point, from St. 
Paul. For Paul proves nothing in his favor, as we have 
obviously seen. Having failed, therefore, in consequence 
of irrelevant testimony, does he expect the "judge,'"' 
the people, will give him his case merely from the "a- 
mounf of testimony he is able to bring "in the action" 
without any reference to its import ? Indeed, one of his 
principal witnesses testifies that "servants" must "be 
subject to" their "masters with all fear." And even if 
their masters are "fro ward," and punish them when they 
are not guilty, or when they "do well," they are to take 
it patiently." That is, it is no virtue in slaves to be in- 
subordinate even to wicked masters. But all masters 



Ill 

were not so. For some of them are called "good" and 
"gentle" There is no evidence to prove, that the ex- 
pressions, "endure grief," "suffering wrongfully," being 
"buffeted," "suffer for it," &c. have any reference to 
the "loss of liberty," in itself considered, but to unjust 
treatment in scourging, fee. probably in much the same 
way, as many of the slaves are used by unfeeling ma- 
ters in our own day.* What evidence, therefore, is this, 
against the sin of "loss of liberty ?" Nothing at all. 

Permit us just to make a remark upon one other 
here cited ; for Mr. S. tells us, that, if this, with 1>« ut. 
24: 14, and Jeremiah 21: 12, does "not set down 
slave-holding as a sin against God, then no sin is de- 
scribed in any part of the Bible." p. 97. INow it is ad- 
mitted that slaves work for their food, clothing and pro- 
tection whatever that may be ; and not lor any stipula- 
ted sum as wages. It is presumed no one denies this. 
But the passage under consideration, James 5 ! 4, com- 
mences thus ;— "Behold, the hire of the laborers who 
have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept 
back bv fraud, crieth," &c The original, ho % 
implies, merces, pramium laborum, primarily, wages, 
or premium for labor, and shows evidently that these 
wages were due a servant who was not a slave, and to 
whom the master was not under any obligations to tar- 
nish food and clothing. But who had to provide all 
these things for himself. If, therefore, such an hired 
servant could not obtain his wages, he could not uniisli 
oither his own food or clothing. Taking a* ay the wa- 
ges of a hired servant, therefore, was the same thing 
bs the taking away of the food and clothing oi a slave. 
Both of which are reprehensible, when the master has 
their labor. But the food and, clothing oi a slave are 
not called "wages," because they are not the result ol 
any agreement between the parties, although always un- 
derstood, -for every slaveholder expects to support bis 
slaves. With hired servants it is not bo. Iney an 
supported just in proportion to the amount ol 
they get. 'if they do not get their wages, they get »0 l*p 
1 Pet. -2: 18 to 20. 



112 

port, for no body is obliged to support them. Hence 
the injustice and sin of withholding from such their wa- 
ges ; and hence the propriety of the passage quoted. — 
The same remarks will apply to Deut. 24 : 14. Where, 
then, is the force of these, and similar texts, against the 
sin of slavery ? There is no force in them on this point. 
They are entirely irrelevant to the subject for which 
they are quoted. Explanation of Jere. 21 : 12 will be 
found in Sec. 9, and in other places. 

Keeping, therefore, in mind the principles we have 
so frequently laid down, with regard to slavery, or the 
loss of liberty, — (for we use the terms synonymously, 
wherever they are used, as meaning the same thing,) it 
is not difficult to see that Mr. S. has utterly failed of 
proving the position he designed, — the sin of slavery. 
For so long as the Bible does not contradict itself, every 
writer of it, must tell, either the same story, or a con- 
tinuation of it. Consequently, so long as it was ac- 
knowledged by Mr, S. that slavery was recognized by 
the Bible, just so long was it in vain for him to attempt 
to disprove that it did exist without sin, by the same 
book. It was time spent for nought, and a "vain beat- 
ing the air." We, however, give a list of the texts he 
lias cited, which have not been referred to in this sec- 
tion, for the gratification of those who wish to look at them. 

Texts cited. James 2 : 6, 8, 9,— 10,— 13— 3 : 17. 
_5: 1,-4,— 5,— 2 Peter 2: 2,3.-1 Peter. 2 : 18 
to 20,— 3: 8.— Uohn3: 14,— 16,— 17,— 4 : 20.— 2 
John 10, 11.— Rev. 18: 11 to 13. 

At the head of the chapter we are now reviewing, it 
was stated that we had "the Testimony of God, that the 
system shall finally and utterly come to an end." 

This is quoted by our author as being the senti- 
ment of Inspiration. But does this sentiment de- 
clare that slavery will be abandoned now, and forev- 
er ! We know it will be abandoned, and we would to 
God, that it could be, even this moment. For there is 
a time coming when all unrighteousness shall cease, 
whether it be sin, or not. "When nations will learn 
war no more," and when, having food and raiment, we 



113 

shall therewith he content." And that, inasmuch 
all reformation is to he brought about by the use of 
means, it is desirable that all Christian- and philanthro- 
pists should be "up and doing" that the wbe< I of 
form should turn surely and rapidly. But in doing this, 
•'caution" is the "side of safety." "Men are not like 
iron, to be wrought upon while they are hot, 
the proverb. Take him in his cool, reflecting 
ments, if you wish to make a proselyte of him. Adapt 
the proper means to their proper ends, and the woi 
half accomplished. In this way is it, that slavery will 
be abolished in this country if it ever is, peaceably . 'i . 
is no man so lost to propriety but that he will adb< : 
reason if it comes to him in the proper channel. He 
never can be gained by exaggerating his faults, — t. 
fying his errors, or by denouncing him as a knave, a liar, 
a thief, a murderer, an oppressor, an adulterer, or a debau- 
chee ! There is nothing like truth! O, it is a precious j< 
Well may it be said, "Magnets est v ritas, ei // 

SECTION 14. 
Some farther Remari 
We have now closed our remarks on the evidenc« 
brought forward by Mr. S. to prove the "nil ol 
We shall now offer a few thoughts on some of ttfi 
timents expressed by the author in the work befol 
What he has to say concerning the laws of the 
States — or of the lies told in sell min- 

isters of the Gospel — of the heart-rendi i, and 

'•hideous bowlings" made by disconsolate mothers at th 3 
loss of their children — of the customs of man-traffic 
kidnappers, soul-drivers, bloody whips, man-ca 
and their traps, of negro-hunts, of m 
ties, &c. we shall not now stop to notice, If the, 
1st, as here portrayed, it is a great calamity, and calk 
loudly for redress, or even if such c -t at all. — 

But it is with the pernicious tendency of certain 
ments we have now to do. We think Mr. S. ha 
been sufficiently guarded in several <>l hi sion*. 

In his note on Numbers 10: 9, he says "Here kJ 
10* 



:i4 

promised the Jews success, when they went to war a- 
gainst those who oppressed them." And then asks the 
question, "would not the same principles of his govern- 
ment lead him to favor the oppressed in this land, in an 
attempt to gain their freedom ?" 

Inasmuch as it is taken for granted by many, that, in 
abolitionist publications, the term "oppressed" is used in- 
stead of the term "slave," there is no mystery in know- 
ing who are meant by that term. Now we ask, is there 
not. here an insinuation that insubordination bf the slaves 
is justifiable ; and a hint for them to rise and assert their 
liberty? Is it not, in virtue, saying to them, you are 
oppressed — you are wronged — your birth is'more noble 
than this — your rights are equal to your masters — rise, 
assert your liberties, and the God of heaven shall assist 
you ! We ask again, is it not in effect telling them to 
revolutionize themselves, and that they are sure of con- 
quest ; for, "the Almighty has no attribute which could 
take sides with us in such a contest." The sentiment 
breathes the very spirit of insubordination and insurrec- 
tion ! But are we told the slaves are ignorant of our 
devices ? That they cannot read ? It is a mistake. 
Many of them can, and when such a sentiment gets a- 
mong them it spreads. "It is ajact" says the Boston Re- 
corder, "that free persons of color in Washington City 
take the Liberator, and read it to slaves." And what is 
there to prevent this ? Will any one tell us why the slaves 
cannot get hold of these principles ? After the devel- 
opement of such sentiments, it is of no use to preach, 
that "the true friends of the enslaved, do not believe it 
would be right, for the oppressed to use any violence," 
fee. With as much propriety might you hold a man un- 
der water for an hour, and excuse the matter by saying, 
you do not think it right to kill him or use violent means 
over him. We ask are such flimsy, miserable shifts as 
these, excuses ? No, indeed they are not. Neither is 
the other. Let. the slaves once get fully established in 
the principle here divulged by Mr. S. and they ivill act, 
notwithstanding all his negative preaching. 

"We," abolitionists, "try to do something — they," the 



115 

opponents of abolitionist measures, "do nothing." p. 17. 
Yes, indeed, they have done something. According to 

the opinion of even English gentlemen, they have 
"thrown the emancipation cause back to a lamentable 
distance." And according to a letter addressed to the 
Editor of the New York Observer, the writer distinctly 
states that it is his opinion, "the removal of slavery 
from this country, if it is ever effected, is retarded pif- 
ty years, by the recent movements." "A feu a 
since and thousands of masters in the South were delib- 
erating in the fear of God, what was their duty toward 
their slaves? Now every man's hands are tied up. — 
They cannot move a step in the instruction of their 
slaves — they are compelled to hold them as they are. 
Said a gentleman to me yesterday, '1 have slaves. If the 
Northern people, or any one else, will agree to remove 
them to Africa, I will give them so many this year and 
so many next year, and so on till all are gone and a 
thousand dollars in cash.' " But these benevolent 
feelings toward the slave in the South, are, in a great 
measure, crushed. The slave's privileges have been cur- 
tailed, and his chains have been riveted stronger. Even 
his religious privileges have been narrowed down, and his 
intercourse with the whites obstructed, in consequence 
of abolition movements. Truly then did our Author 
say, "We try to do something." But do others "do 
nothing V — to assist philanthropists in (nth ring the 
condition of the blacks ? We think they do. Let us bear 
some testimony on this subject. 

Mr. Ivuftis \V. Bailey is a native of this State — 
(Maine.) He removed from it a few years since, to 
the State of South Carolina, where he is settled as I 
Presbyterian pastor, and preaches, as we understand, 
with success to his people. He owns no slaves, and, 
he says, he never expects to, or even wishes to do it. 
He says, within a few years, increased efforts have been 
made by Christian masters, and by ministers, to impart 
religious instruction to the slave population, and to bring 
them under a moral influence. — The vice of intemper- 
ance has been greatly diminished among them. — The 



116 

Sabbath is very generally regarded as a day of rest, if 
not of devotion. — Increasing and great care is used by 
masters to remove the most common sources of tempta- 
tion, to provide for them good and separate sleeping a- 
partments, to promote and encourage the marriage rela- 
tion, and give a due respect to families by special indul- 
gencies and privileges. Provision is generally made, in 
the construction of churches to accommodate them in 
separate seats, and in some places, churches are fitted 
up for their separate use. Sabbath school and family 
instruction is extended to them extensively in religious 
families; and, as, a missionary field, the black popula- 
tion of our plantations is attracting the attention, and en- 
listing the voluntary services, of all, who can feel the 
missionary spirit, or be warmed into action by the love 
of souls." 

•''The Synod of South Carolina and Georgia," con- 
tinues he, "have made the religious condition of our 
slave population a subject of special consideration for 
several years. In regard to the spirit, which prevails in 
this Synod, I will state a fact, as the besl illustration I can 
give. An intelligent gentleman from the North, who 
attended on the sessions of our last meet ngs and heard 
the discussions on this subject, declared to me that he 
was entirely satisfied, and that meeting had done much 
to mitigate and destroy the strong prejudices against 
Southern slavery, with which he had just come into the 
country." — '-Our clergy generally pay a particular at- 
tention to their black congregations. Many of them 
give the entire afternoon of the Sabbath to them. Sun- 
day Schools among them are almost universally organ- 
ized. Several of our most talented and most promising 
young ministers are devoting their entire service to the 
blacks, and, to do this, have declined calls to some of 
the most distinguished stations in our church." Ch. 
Mirror, of Sept. 10, 1835. Thus much Mr/Bailey. 
Does all this testimony go to show that others "do noth- 
ing," in the cause of benevolence and philanthropy? 

But again : In addition to what the Presbyterians and 
other denominations are doing, the Methodist E. Church 



11- 
is not asleep on the subject. In New Orleans, tbej 
have a mission station for the especial benefit of tbe hlack 
population of that city. The Mississippi Confer 
has also, six other missionary establishments within its 
bounds, "all for the benefit of the: people of color" ilone. 
The Georgia Conference bas^/itt establiahnu nts of the 
same kind and for a similar purpose, and on which there 
are "about one thousand church members." In South 
Carolina Conference there taetwehe missionar 
for the black population, attached to which there are 
about 2,300 members of the church. 

"These Southern missions," says the \6th Am. Ji< p. 
of the Miss. Soc. of the M. E. Church, "for the spe- 
cial benefit of the slaves, are generally iiiumlv vworep 
by the planters!" See Rep. referred to, p. L5. 

There are also other missionary establishments for the 
blacks as those in Limestone, Centreville, he. in Ten- 
nessee. Neither are these stations all the means the slave- 
have of being benefited. They have the word of God 
preached to them — explained and enforced upon them 
in other places. They are visited, and instructed by the 
faithful servants of Christ. In proof of this statement it 
is merely necessary to observe, that in the South Caroli- 
na Conference alone, there arc twenty' isand < r- 
en hundred and thirty-seven Hack church • ■'— 
And, supposing there are as many mere in other church- 
es, we have, for the territory included by that Confer-* 
ence, the number of forty' nil church mem- 
bers ! All of whom are blacks. But as it is frequently 
said others do nothing, we will just quote one mor 
tract from Mr. Bailey. 

"In the Report of their meeting"— the abolitionists' 
meeting of Maine— held in Brunswick on the 28th oi 
October 1835, 1 see the following preamble and res- 
olution recorded as adopted, viz. — "Whereas it w 
often said by our opponents that slaves ought not to 
be liberated till the;, are properly educated, and whereas 
those opponents are often complaining that abolitionists 
Have done nothing towards liberating tb slaves, therefore, 
Resolved, that we have liberated &% many as qui 



118 

opponents have educated and promise to continue to do 
the same." This is a noble resolution, and I am sure 
that, under the deliberate action of such men, it cannot 
be mere gasconade. No doubt some calculations were 
furnished by the mover to show that the assertion con- 
tained in the resolution was the truth. Although I feel 
confident that other statements might be substantiated to 
subvert the position, yet it is the pledge which is of 
principal importance; and coming from such men it is of 
great value. I can render them, perhaps, some impor- 
tant aid in fulfilment of this most benevolent pledge. I 
know of not less than five hundred slaves who are "prop- 
erty educated" in my judgment for freedom, and I pre- 
sume my opinion of their qualifications in this respect 
will be admitted. They have been educated by "oppo- 
nents" of the abolitionists, and can be procured at a fair 
price, according to the laws of the country. Any agen- 
cies which may be appointed to effect the plan of the 
"A. S. Society of Maine" in the fair purchase of them 
for "liberation" shall have my aid, and I have no doubt 
the number may be, by a little enquiry, swelled to thou- 
sands, and constantly increased. Will you* please to 
announce this interesting information to that enterprising 
and benevolent society, in such a way as will enable 
them immediately to apply their resolution of it to the 
case." See Ch. Mirror, Bee. 10, 1835. Here, then, 
is a fair chance to ascertain which side does the work. 
The anti-abolitionists have acted as well as said ; but 
where is the performance of the noble resolution adopted 
by the abolitionists ? 

"Perhaps the reader is aware how often we have been 
told that, to abolish the slave system, would lead to an 
amalgamation of the whites and blacks of this country !" 
p. 64. No, sir. The simple liberation of the slaves 
will never do it. It is the principle assumed by aboli- 
tionists that is objected to. For let me ask the candor 
of any one, if the blacks are perfect equals, and have 
the same perfect rights with white people, why may 

* The Rev. Silas McKeen of this State to whom this communica- 
tion was addressed. 



119 

they not marry ? Have they not as good ri<_, r ht to mar- 
ry white people, as white people have to marry among 
themselves? By what principle of honor, or of equity 
can you prevent the marriage of equals 1 If you cannot, 
will it not follow, that an amalgamation of black and while 
is justifiable ? 

"A slave-holding preacher ! How would the idea 
strike the reader, to contemplate Jesus Chfisi as an en- 
slaver of the human species? How would it sound in 
the ear of a Christian, at this age of the world, to speak 
of St. Paul as a "soul-driver" or a "slave-hob 
p. 69. And yet our author tells us, that Joshua wa> 
the slave of Moses, Elisha was the slave of Elijah, and 
St. Paul, St. Peter and the other Apostles were the 
slaves of Jesus Christ ! ! p. 87. We think the first 
epithets sound quite as well as the last ; and, as to sense, 
there is not much difference between them. 

"How does it seem to the reader, to think of .) 
Christ, set up at auction, bought and sold, yol 
an iron collar, chained, scourged and driven to work 
with a club or a cow-hide ?" p. 76. Abominable! — 
What! a vile worm presume to take the sacred name 
of the great Jehovah which is too holy lor man to utter, 
and which was withheld even from Moses, who had priv- 
ileges granted him which no other man ever did, of talk- 
ing with the Lord "face to face," to make such a use ol 
it! But it is not the name. It is the person of the 
Great God himself that is made to subserve sueh an un- 
holy comparison ! We must acknowledge, that a tremor 
of horror ran through our soul while we read the sen- 
tence. A professed Christian Minister! "Tell it not in 
Gath, publish it not in the streets of Askelon : lest the 
daughters of the Philistines rejoice, lest the daughters ol 
the uncircumcised triumph." 

"For this relation" — that of master and slave — "it 
must be remembered, allows and ju^tilie^ the master, in 
doing what the word of God forbids, and it not only al- 
lows of such things, but it makes it the master's duty to 
do them, and it imposes a penalty upon him if he leaves 
them undone !" p. 85. 



120 

It is somewhat unfortunate that Mr. S. did not state 
what this "penalty" is, which this relation imposes upon 
the master if he do not do many things contrary to the 
word of God. But as he has not informed us, we must 
drop that point and proceed. 

The position assumed here is false, because it is based 
on the position that a relation is stronger than a bond. 
For instance — a person may have a piece of property that 
is his own — it may have been given him, entirely and for- 
ever. The relation this individual holds to that proper- 
ty, is a perfect relation — he has the entire control over it, 
he can swap it, sell it, apply it to his own use, or he may 
trade it away in any manner he pleases. But it so hap- 
pens he spends his property for rum — gets drunk, and com- 
mits murder ! Now did he violate his relation to that prop- 
erty by thus spending it ? Certainly not. But did he 
do right 1 Every one will answer no. If the man did 
not violate his relation to his property in thus disposing 
of it; and if he did wrong in doing as he did, why was 
it ? The reason was, because a relation which exists 
between a man and his property, can never supersede 
the force of the bonds under which the man may be laid. 
In other words, man is under the bonds of a moral law 
to his God, and notwithstanding he may have all the 
rights which a "relation" can confer, yet if he uses that 
relation in a manner different from the principles of Chris- 
tianity, he is not accused by that relation, but by the 
strong voice of moral obligation to his God. The ab- 
surdity of the position appears at once. A man has no 
more right to abuse his property of any kind, than he 
has to abuse his slave ; for a a bond, a relation can nev- 
er break. 

Our author seems to think that if the relation between 
master and slave is to be justified, then it follows "that 
they justify every thing which it authorizes the master 
to do." And among the things which this relation au- 
thorizes the master to do, our author enumerates the 
abuse of the slave, even to "death" itself. Consequent- 
ly, if a man wills, he may get drunk, steal, assault his 
friend and commit murder ! An^ ftjQ this be right ac- 



121 

cording to this doctrine. It must be admitted that mar 
is made up of two parts "mind and matter.*' The body 
being merely the agent, through which the mind acts ; 
or, it being the "servant" of the mind. The relation, 
therefore, which exists between the mind and the body 
must be as close as that between the master and the 
slave. If therefore the master is obliged to "scourge^ 
"maim," or "kill" his slave, simply in virtue of that re- 
lation : so also is the man obliged to do the same things 
on himself; or get drunk, steal, he. in virtue of the 
same relation with his mind or will. The fallacy of the 
whole lies in the fact, a relation can never abrogate a 
bond. Hence those who talk so mnch about doing away 
slavery, because a relation is not impugned when evil is 
done, "know not whereof they affirm/' The very prin- 
ciple which would abolish slavery on this ground, would 
abolish every thing in the universe to which there is at- 
tached a relation which may sometimes be made an evil 
use of. Even the very book of inspiration itself would 
be banished from the earth. For we sustain a relation 
to that, and yet we abuse the use of it in virtue of that 
relation. Consequently that blessed Book is to be put 
forever beyond our reach ! 

We notice one more sentiment in the work befo; 
and then we have done. 

" 'But the laws will not sutler me to do this, — I must 
obey the laws.' What! must you obey the laws which 
contravene the laws of God!" p. 89. 

But in all this who made thee a judge ? "But if thou 
judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge." 
Who shall say, ivhen the laws of the land "do contra- 
vene the laws of God." Will you be your own jui 
Remember there are others in the world who think dif- 
ferently, perhaps, from you. There are those who sup- 
pose that the laws of the land do not "contravene the 
laws of God." Whom shall we follow in this case ? 
We seem to have no standard. Which course is the 
to follow, that of the law which has been made by the 
wisdom of "many heads," or shall we set down our own 
pompous Unity, and follow that ? 
11 



122 

A case occurred several years ago, where an individ- 
ual put the principle intimated here into practice. He 
was a zealous Christian by profession, and was governed 
by what he supposed was the law and will of God con- 
cerning him — leaving others to do as they chose ; but 
for one, he must do right. In his estimation, "the law" 
or will of God to him was, that he should go one cold 
"blustering" night, some distance, and plunge the fatal 
knife into the bosom of an unsuspecting female ! which 
laid her ieadupon the spot! And all this without any 
provocation, other than that the laws of the land should 
not be obeyed when they "contravened the will of God" 
to him ! 

When we read this sentiment, w T e were really surprised 
to think that any one, considering the wide door it throws 
open, could have the hardihood to divulge it. And 
then after all, endeavor to support it from scripture. 
What is this but telling man to disregard all laws but 
such as they like ? Who does not see in this statement 
the very essence of rebellion ? In fact would not the 
same principle denounce all law 1 Would it not set at 
defiance all magistrates and civil rulers ? Just get the prin- 
ciple sanctioned that no laws are to be obeyed which con - 
travene the law of God, and every man will put his own 
comment on that — just to suit himself. And the conse- 
quence will be that no law whatever will be obeyed. 
Every man will be a law to himself, and will do just as 
he pleases. Of such sentiments we cannot be too mark- 
ed in our expression of disapprobation. 



tRRATA. 

The render is requested to make the following corrections with hif 
pen or pencil, viz. 

Page C, 14th line from bottom fur different, read deficient. 
"» 10, 5th line from top,-lor Dcut. 23 : 236, read Deut. 23: 20 
" 11, 14th line from top, for beg usury, read pay usury. 
Next line, same page, for 35. 6, read, 35, 3G. Also, for Deut. 23 : 
2, read 23 : 20. 

Change the first word of the heading of Sec. 3, p. 12. from Docs, 
into Do. 

Paae 24, line 18 from top, for Gen. 17 : 21, read Gen. 17 : 27. 
» 30, line 19 from top, for 8 ; 49, 20, read 8 : 19, 20. 
" 3G, line 4 from bottom, for 2— .read 21. 
" 45, line 16 from bottom, ch 2 28, read ch. 2 : 23. 
:■ 43, line 6 from bottom, for \ 12. 

" CI, line U from bottom, for dictated to him, read dictated/^ him. 
" G9, line 11), from top, dele end, afti i "just." 
11 74, line 6, from bottom, put A. for l>. and B. for A. In the 
4th and 1st lines also, read P lor A.; and A. for B. in the 3d line. 

Page 77, line 8, from bottom, fi I noble, read exception- 

able. 

Page 82, line from bottom, for Grn. 2: 4-1. read Gen. 2 • 21. 
Page 83, Hne 4 from bottom, for Deut. 12: 15, read »l : 15. 



n 



■:■ M 




.«> ..... *#. 




0+. ..-..% >*\ 1 --.«. f 















, %> * * o 









* V "V 







:< 







o > 



^ 






i\+*\ 








; »°-n 








• * ' • ♦ "^ 

, HECKMAN 

( BINDERY INC. |« 

^APR 89 

f=m> N. MANCHESTER. 
^^ INDIANA 46962^ 







